UAD Luna solely for mixing & mastering?

[jens]

You can also simply press Spill, and then you’ll only see the bus and the respective routed tracks. All others will be hidden.

Tbh I don't see how that would help with the situation/problem. The Spill-function does soemthing else as far as I get it (and tbh something far less useful in my opinion)

But I think in the future we will still get features like mono-to-stereo tracks, folders, and much more. The last update alone was fantastic with track presets and bounce in place. Luna 2.0 is not far off, and I hope they continue delivering features we’re asking for, as they’ve done so far. Especially the MIDI editor is still missing quite a few things.

Don't get me wrong - I quite like the concept and design overall - it reminds me of Reason - which I why I find quite a shame that it's a lot well thought-through in many regards. And frankly I don't think it's missing features for the most part of it -well, lack of ARA for instance certainly is - but that mono-track thing clearly seems to be a crass misconception. And likewise that there are Bus-tracks that - potential automation aside - will be completely empty yet can't be hidden only for the timeline without also hiding them in the mixer (i.e. the place where you'll almost exclusively are going to use them).

Reason handles busses very similarly. However they won't appear in the sequencer unless you automate something. Only then they'll automatically appear - but of course you can always remove them again without removing them from the mixer.
In Luna-land on the other hand they obviously didn't give any thought to that.

I completely understand you, but I don’t think the mono track issue is a design flaw. It’s simply not possible at the moment, but that doesn’t mean we won’t get an update for it. Just be patient.

New features like Bounce in Place are very well thought out, and I haven’t seen this yet in some established DAWs.

Personally, I prefer having bus tracks visible in the arranger because I mostly mix exclusively in the arranger. Constantly switching to the mixer, especially without a second monitor, is pretty exhausting. It’s a good thing that, unlike Reason, Luna has a channel visible in the arranger.

And yes, Luna is perfect for mixing. Here are a few positives:
• All plugins work seamlessly.
• You can freeze tracks.
• Routing is fast and straightforward.
• The time-stretch algorithms are excellent.
• Audio editing (cutting, fades in and out, etc.) is super quick with shortcuts.
• The audio waveform display is clean.
• You can import tracks from other sessions.
• All types of tracks can be saved as presets and added to the arranger via drag-and-drop from the browser.
• On the output meter, you can enable or disable all plugins simultaneously.

Overall, I’m very satisfied. It’s not perfect yet, but as long as the features keep coming and remain free, I really can’t complain.

Fair enough...

by the way: I got it sorted now. If you open the Mixer View in another window then the track-visibility doesn't affect the other View (i.e. window). So it is possible after all to have different tracks visible in both view.

[jens]

So yeah... I gave in and just got myself the Pro Bundle for the few nickles Uncle E took for it.

[jens]

ack - the API Vision channel strip GUI is one hot mess. Is there no way to at least increase its size?

[Zikax]

ack - the API Vision channel strip GUI is one hot mess. Is there no way to at least increase its size?

At first, it was too small for me as well. However, if you’ve worked with API a lot, it doesn’t really matter because you know exactly what happens when you adjust something. But you can also display it larger by clicking on maximize. It will then appear on the left side.

If it still feels too small for you, you can simply load the regular API channel strip in the insert slot. Personally, I’m not such a big fan of API.

[jens]

ack - the API Vision channel strip GUI is one hot mess. Is there no way to at least increase its size?

At first, it was too small for me as well. However, if you’ve worked with API a lot, it doesn’t really matter because you know exactly what happens when you adjust something. But you can also display it larger by clicking on maximize. It will then appear on the left side.

here it's exactly the same size then - the only difference is that it shows all three sections at once plus it shows a far too big present browser...

If it still feels too small for you, you can simply load the regular API channel strip in the insert slot. Personally, I’m not such a big fan of API.

I have selected it as "Console" (there's only the two different APIs to choose from and nothing else) but tbh I have no real idea yet what that actually means... I would have assumed it turns the channel into an API channel-strip, but apparently it just loads it into a tiny window instead. It also sits additionally in the inserts anyway though, so I don't really understand yet what would be the advantage over simply inserting the normal plugin.

The tape-options seem weird (i.e. weirdly arbitrary) to me too by the way. I can only load Oxide and the Studer on normal channels but only the Ampex on busses.

Tbh I would have hoped for the extensions to be a bit smarter and more user-freindly implemented... but perhaps it's just that I haven't quite sussed out yet how it all works.
(As was actually a bit the case with the mono-tracks issue where I ended up finding a workaround that works (well almost) perfectly fine for me.)

[Zikax]

ack - the API Vision channel strip GUI is one hot mess. Is there no way to at least increase its size?

At first, it was too small for me as well. However, if you’ve worked with API a lot, it doesn’t really matter because you know exactly what happens when you adjust something. But you can also display it larger by clicking on maximize. It will then appear on the left side.

here it's exactly the same size then - the only difference is that it shows all three sections at once plus it shows a far too big present browser...

If it still feels too small for you, you can simply load the regular API channel strip in the insert slot. Personally, I’m not such a big fan of API.

I have selected it as "Console" (there's only the two different APIs to choose from and nothing else) but tbh I have no real idea yet what that actually means... I would have assumed it turns the channel into an API channel-strip, but apparently it just loads it into a tiny window instead. It also sits additionally in the inserts anyway though, so I don't really understand yet what would be the advantage over simply inserting the normal plugin.

The tape-options seem weird (i.e. weirdly arbitrary) to me too by the way. I can only load Oxide and the Studer on normal channels but only the Ampex on busses.

Tbh I would have hoped for the extensions to be a bit smarter and more user-freindly implemented... but perhaps it's just that I haven't quite sussed out yet how it all works.
(As was actually a bit the case with the mono-tracks issue where I ended up finding a workaround that works (well almost) perfectly fine for me.)

You need to understand the difference between the three tape emulations and how they are used in the analog world.

Studer is typically used for individual tracks to add analog warmth.
Oxide is great for quick, characterful saturation.
Ampex, on the other hand, is explicitly designed for mix bus or mastering purposes.

The mixer in Luna provides exactly what you would typically find in an analog studio. That’s the point.

Since you own all of them, including API, you can freely place them in an insert slot and configure your channel strip to your liking. The option is there.

The API doesn’t sound any different whether you use it as a plugin insert or as part of the Console. It appears in the insert slot anyway. This has the advantage of allowing you to decide, for example, whether other effects should come before or after the Console.

[jens]

Ampex, on the other hand, is explicitly designed for mix bus or mastering purposes.

And that's exactly the problem, since I have to use a bus-channel as a substitute for a normal channel (remember?).
So I am forced to use the Ampex on individual channels.

(Personally I normally don't use busses.
Tried it, diidn't like it. It's not for me - to each their own.)

[Zikax]

Ampex, on the other hand, is explicitly designed for mix bus or mastering purposes.

And that's exactly the problem, since I have to use a bus-channel as a substitute for a normal channel (remember?).
So I am forced to use the Ampex on individual channels.

(Personally I normally don't use busses.
Tried it, diidn't like it. It's not for me - to each their own.)

U can insert Studer and Oxide in any Slot. Whats the problem? U have it as plugin, remember?

[Zikax]

Ampex, on the other hand, is explicitly designed for mix bus or mastering purposes.

(Personally I normally don't use busses.
Tried it, diidn't like it. It's not for me - to each their own.)

Jens, because I’m a nice guy, I’ve got a workaround for you on how to handle mono tracks without routing them to a bus.

Duplicate the mono track, select both tracks, and then go to the top menu bar, click on Track (it’s between Edit and Mixing). There, you’ll find the option Convert to Stereo, and voila, you’ve got a stereo track.

It also works the other way around, from stereo to mono. It’s a bit cumbersome, but it would temporarily solve your problem.

[jens]

The two biggest supporters of Luna in this thread:

It's all the buzz words. Before you even do anything, everything sounds glued, harsh frequencies are smoothed, and transients are softened.

U can insert Studer and Oxide in any Slot. Whats the problem? U have it as plugin, remember?

All kidding aside, I've yet to find out what advantage the dedicated slots might (or might) offer. And tbh I already have my favourite tape-plugins (which I religiously use either one on almost everything, so I'll have to see how well UAD can compete with these - and if the UADs plugins weren't actually superior in any sort of way, then why bother?

[jens]

Ampex, on the other hand, is explicitly designed for mix bus or mastering purposes.

(Personally I normally don't use busses.
Tried it, diidn't like it. It's not for me - to each their own.)

Jens, because I’m a nice guy, I’ve got a workaround for you on how to handle mono tracks without routing them to a bus.

Duplicate the mono track, select both tracks, and then go to the top menu bar, click on Track (it’s between Edit and Mixing). There, you’ll find the option Convert to Stereo, and voila, you’ve got a stereo track.

It also works the other way around, from stereo to mono. It’s a bit cumbersome, but it would temporarily solve your problem.

Thanks - I actually already know this, but unfortunately I don't think this is going to work because I then can't keep recording on the same track, or can I? What's going to happen with typical stereo-plugins (i.e. those that can't be put on mono-tracks) if I try to convert back to mono (in order to record additional material)?

[Uncle E]

The two biggest supporters of Luna in this thread:

It's all the buzz words. Before you even do anything, everything sounds glued, harsh frequencies are smoothed, and transients are softened.

U can insert Studer and Oxide in any Slot. Whats the problem? U have it as plugin, remember?

I don't get it.

All kidding aside, I've yet to find out what advantage the dedicated slots might (or might) offer. And tbh I already have my favourite tape-plugins (which I religiously use either one on almost everything, so I'll have to see how well UAD can compete with these - and if the UADs plugins weren't actually superior in any sort of way, then why bother?

Why not just use it the way it defaults, with Studer, Ampex, and API Vision, 2500, and summing loaded? That's what I referred to when I made my comment. Leave them on when you create busses and effects sends, too.

[jens]

The two biggest supporters of Luna in this thread:

It's all the buzz words. Before you even do anything, everything sounds glued, harsh frequencies are smoothed, and transients are softened.

U can insert Studer and Oxide in any Slot. Whats the problem? U have it as plugin, remember?

I don't get it.

If you can just as well put it on inserts, then you can do exactly the same in any other host and then there's no difference in this regard to any other DAW.

All kidding aside, I've yet to find out what advantage the dedicated slots might (or might) offer. And tbh I already have my favourite tape-plugins (which I religiously use either one on almost everything, so I'll have to see how well UAD can compete with these - and if the UADs plugins weren't actually superior in any sort of way, then why bother?

Why not just use it the way it defaults, with Studer, Ampex, and API Vision, 2500, and summing loaded? That's what I referred to when I made my comment. Leave them on when you create busses and effects sends, too.

Because UAD thinks the Ampex is no good on individual channels and my projects almost exclusively would/are going to consist of busses that are individual channels (i.e. every single bus out of ten or so is fed by a single mono-track.)

[Uncle E]

If you can just as well put it on inserts, then you can do exactly the same in any other host and then there's no difference in this regard to any other DAW.

Yes, I think I said that. The only difference is the summing (only available in Luna), the separation of Vision's preamp, and the convenience. For me, the convenience is a big deal because I wouldn't normally load these on to every channel and it's the culmination of everything working together that creates the 20% improvement in my mixes.

Because UAD thinks the Ampeg is no good on individual channels and my projects almost exclusively would/are going to consist of busses that are individual channels (i.e. every single bus out of ten or so is fed by a single mono-track.)

Got it. That makes sense. Well, I'm pretty much right there with you, loading tons of Ampex's on my busses, effects sends, and masters, and I think it sounds excellent.

[jens]

I see - thanks!