who wants one of thease in Tracktion

[djsubject]

But I agree, foldertracks is about 1000 times more important than going back in time to re-create a mixing board.

just for the recoard i fully agree!!!!

this post is more of a wind up than any thing else

its only becouse i know even those that want a mixer dont want anything that looks like that

the good old emulated hardware mixer

Subz

Yeah right subz, we all know you want a virtual mixer complete with wooden panels and crackly dusty faders for Tracktion.

dusty faders

[freeztar]

(and yes, I realize that in a software mixer, you cannot manipulate multiple faders in real time--but I consider that akin to saying a one-armed producer cannot really produce).

You haven't tried xyz apparently.

[bastien]

Wouldn't a 'mixer screen' just be the current filter area rotated 90 degrees clockwise and stretched over the main part of the screen?

(Actually, that almost seems like a good idea!)

[jalapeno]

I'd prefer a spellchecker

[audiobot202]

Agreed 100% Lunch Money. A friend of mine took one look at T2 and said ,'where's the mixer?'. I just looked at him and said 'Dude, it's right there in front of you. Every darn track is a mixer channel!'
I don't get this whole mier issue. It must be because it's familir. I can;t think of anything else a mixer would realistically offer that is not already there. Can we pan and adjust volume levels? Yes. Can we add tons of per track fx and adjust all parameters? Yes. Can we make send channels? Yes. Do we have a Master out channel that can be adjusted and fx can be applied to? Yes.
I think that covers all the mixing bases right?

[IIRs]

I think that covers all the mixing bases right?

Wrong, you missed sub-groups.. which Tracktion handles better than any mixer, real or virtual.

[spacefox]

What is so damn fabulous about T's mixer (or lack thereoff) is modularity.

How do you represent, in an old-fashined mixer way, multiple volume/ pan filters per track? Multiple EQs, multiple meters? What about "affect MIDI velocities" (one of my favorites)?

[lharless]

i think alot of people against the mixer are just on a bandwagon of sorts.

an onscreen mixer is very useful. saying that it's not is as viable as saying that compression is not needed during tracking. it's a taste issue. not a needed/unneeded issue. so i say again. please make a mixer tab available within tracktion. those that don't want it, don't have to use that tab. everything stays the same elsewhere, but theres a mixer tab that can be selected just as the settings tab and so forth.

it's quite simple. i don't see what the fuss is. you'd be keeping alot of customers.

not everybody that uses tracktion comes to these forums. (GASP!!! the horror!!!)

not everybody that comes here posts their opinion. alot of people just come here to read. ill bet there are more readers than posters in this place. ...wink...

anyway. my point is that it's a wanted feature, regardless of how many use it that are resident in this forum. you will be providing functionality for your customers that do want it.

im moving on if its not there soon. this relationship is just holding me back otherwise. simply.

[lharless]

also... for those that say they will use a hardware mixer or controller...

just as you wouldn't go buy logic orpro tools because of the bloated price and inability to use vst effects and instruments... there are some that don't want to buy a costly controller. so therefore an onscreen mixer is vital for some to be able to mix.

if i hear another person say go back to cubase, im gonna start poppin off shots...

this is not about going to another host. it's about perfecting this one so that it's useful for folks.

this is no longer an underground software. don't treat it as such. it is now a software that many people have access to. it's wide open now. its public and it's not a secret anymore. and laot of the users want a mixer.

so... i don't see what the problem is with getting a mixer tab in there. it's just somebody's ego holding us all back.

[IIRs]

it's quite simple.

No its not. If anyone can explain to me how the existing funcionality could be incorporated into a mixer, I will stop opposing it. Otherwise, stop asking me to give up most of my favorite Tracktion features just so that the few that you use look more familiar.

And there is no way it is comparable to the use of compression, which actually affects the sound!!!

[lharless]

...im all worked up now. im gonna have to go to a tea bar and meditate before i can go to work... ...sigh...

[audiobot202]

i think alot of people against the mixer are just on a bandwagon of sorts.

an onscreen mixer is very useful. saying that it's not is as viable as saying that compression is not needed during tracking. it's a taste issue. not a needed/unneeded issue. so i say again. please make a mixer tab available within tracktion. those that don't want it, don't have to use that tab. everything stays the same elsewhere, but theres a mixer tab that can be selected just as the settings tab and so forth.

it's quite simple. i don't see what the fuss is. you'd be keeping alot of customers.

not everybody that uses tracktion comes to these forums. (GASP!!! the horror!!!)

not everybody that comes here posts their opinion. alot of people just come here to read. ill bet there are more readers than posters in this place. ...wink...

anyway. my point is that it's a wanted feature, regardless of how many use it that are resident in this forum. you will be providing functionality for your customers that do want it.

im moving on if its not there soon. this relationship is just holding me back otherwise. simply.

Tracktion is what it is. Cubase does things a certain way and I don't see them incporporating Tracktion workflow improvements just because some people might want it. Every piece of software offers different features. If you don't like it, you move on. Many FLstudio users want skinnability, but the designer obviously has a design paradigm in mind because he won't incorporate it.
Why institute a feature in Tracktion that is already fully functional just because some people don't gel with the layout or implementation?

[jtxx000]

it's quite simple.

No its not. If anyone can explain to me how the existing functionality could be incorporated into a mixer, I will stop opposing it. Otherwise, stop asking me to give up most of my favorite Tracktion features just so that the few that you use look more familiar.

See my post on the previous page. I'm not advocating putting a mixer in Tracktion but that would integrate with the current workflow.

[dealwithit]

(and yes, I realize that in a software mixer, you cannot manipulate multiple faders in real time--but I consider that akin to saying a one-armed producer cannot really produce).

You haven't tried xyz apparently.

Yes, I have, and it's neat and all, but it doesn't do much for the way I work.

It may be, as Greg stated, simply a matter of familiarity. I grew accustomed to Cubase's mixer, and I'm sure a lot of other potential users have as well (or a similar hardware-emulated mixer interface). I think if you've ever done sound for a live band, the Cubase mixer is second nature.

I gave T a go when the NFR giveaway happened, and I've been happy with it...except for the mixing paradigm, most likely simply because I'm familiar with hardware mixers, and I'm familiar with Cubase's emulation of them. But wouldn't one think that potential customers are lost because they are familiar with hardware mixers (a design that has definitely evolved from years of manipulating audio, and is therefore certainly valid) and have trouble "seeing" the T version?

However, I love the linearity of T. Input->Track->Effects->Volume/Pan->Meter. It's extremely useful, you can see what's where, and no other host makes it so easy to experiment. That should never change. But why not a filter, that can be inserted anywhere filters can be, with a "name" function, that would show up in a mixer tab? Or right click track and "add to mixer"? Just to keep those familiar with a very valid way of mixing audio happy. Imagine if you could right click any filter and, just like automation, any paramater could appear in the mixer strip for that track?

Ahh, well, it'll never happen, but for me at least it would make T a far better host.

And I know, "all of this is available in T now". I know it well. It all boils down to familiarity.

[Lunch Money]

Lee, there's no 'bandwagon' against mixers. That implies some sort of momentum. No, a bunch of people suddenly wanting a mixer would become a bandwagon. The rest of us are simply known as "Tracktioneers".

A bandwagon implies some sort of push... we like T the way it is. That's not a bandwagon!

You side-stepped a point of mine, though-- you say that a hardware-looking thing would be good for people who can't afford a real hardware mixer. That doesn't make sense because it comes back to my point that either way, you're adjusting a slider with a mouse, which is done with either T or Cubase. No effort lost or convenience lost.

I've never been 'against' a mixer anyhow. I just don't get it, and I can't imagine any way someone will convince me that a "hardware-emulating mixer" is better. I can understand dealwithit's 'familiarity' issue, which is why I mentioned it; however, I don't think that people's sense of comfort should be catered to in order to gain these theoretical hordes of customers that some people seem to think would flock to T but for the lack of a 'pseudo-hardware' mixer.

No, if you want to use T, all it takes is a quick shift of perspective, and you can start doing things the T way. Demos allow the user to see if it's suited to them or not. I don't think Mackie/RMS really need to add features merely because they make a 'guess' that it might attract or keep certain customers.

It's pointless. For every person that you find who in all seriousness (ie. they're not just complaining about a lack of mixer, but really WOULD buy it with real money!) tells me that they'd buy Tracktion if not for the lack of a Mixer, I'll show you 5 who moved to Tracktion from Cubase/Sonar/etc. because of its different approach.

Greg