Suggestion for routing.

[Samb]

I don't know what your reluctance is caused by, but I am positive that the routing table could be solved better. I like many of the things that excsists, like the fact that you can follow the audio chain from midi to output just by following the timeline.

I was just having a think about this and about valley's comment about not liking the track destination list (I don't either)and I had an idea

Firstly I don't think racks should be altered as I don't think this would solve zOapMedia's problem and would just create other problems, but a new "mix rack" could be implemented, which replaced the track destination list and possibly the master filter area in some way.

This would simply be a "rack" which would have each track as inputs and outputs, and also any hardware outputs and the master output, as outputs. There would just be a single hardwired instance of this - it couldn't be dragged and dropped onto tracks like racks can and it would take the track inputs from the end of the filter section and the track outputs to the beginning of the filter section, in the same way that re-directing one track into another does now.

By default all tracks would be routed to the master output as they are now, but this could be seen visually by opening up this "mix rack". To redirect a track to another track you would drag the virtual cable so that it connected, say, the track 1 input to the track 2 output. But you could also set up all sorts of modular and parallel routings with vsts aswell, like you can in racks.

Dunno if I've explained that too well, but what does anyone else think?

[Lunch Money]

OR, and this came up once before:

You simply click on the track that you want to become a new "output" device, and in the propery panel there could be a checkbox for "enable this track as an output device". THEN, in the left where the rest of your normal input devices are, you would see a new one, "Track 5" or whatever your track happens to be called at the time.

Then, you could record it (solving the issue of people who desperately want to record in realtime instead of just using automation recording functions) or do whatever else you want with it.

IIRs-- sure, it's just easier to copy the rack, but that doesn't make the number of input devices make any sense. The output devices, sure, but what are the input devices? I'm not saying the functionality's not there, I'm saying: "I don't understand what the heck the new input devices use as their source" and nobody's answered that yet. I'm not being adversarial, I'm just saying that I seriously don't know/don't understand.

Which leads me ALL the way back to the point I usually make about racks: why not just do most of your routing and stuff within the rack itself?

Greg

[zOap]

Allthough I don't see what problems it could create to add tracks to rack inputs, even only for use in key inputs, I like your idea. A master track, as I proposed earlier would be very nice. And the mix rack is a very good idea:) I second it:)

Allthough, as you may know, you could really screw things up with such a rack too. But that's how you create new and wonderful sounds:)

And, in my opinion, you can't dismiss an option just because it MAY cause problems. If that were the case nothing new in sound would be created and no new ideas would be born.

[Lunch Money]

On the other hand, an idea isn't necessarily always worth implementing just because it's new or different.

[zOap]

OR, and this came up once before:

You simply click on the track that you want to become a new "output" device, and in the propery panel there could be a checkbox for "enable this track as an output device". THEN, in the left where the rest of your normal input devices are, you would see a new one, "Track 5" or whatever your track happens to be called at the time.

Then, you could record it (solving the issue of people who desperately want to record in realtime instead of just using automation recording functions) or do whatever else you want with it.

IIRs-- sure, it's just easier to copy the rack, but that doesn't make the number of input devices make any sense. The output devices, sure, but what are the input devices? I'm not saying the functionality's not there, I'm saying: "I don't understand what the heck the new input devices use as their source" and nobody's answered that yet. I'm not being adversarial, I'm just saying that I seriously don't know/don't understand.

Which leads me ALL the way back to the point I usually make about racks: why not just do most of your routing and stuff within the rack itself?

Greg

Mmm, I like:)

[zOap]

On the other hand, an idea isn't necessarily always worth implementing just because it's new or different.

And that's why this thread is useful. To air our thoughts and maybe get them criticised and maybe rethought and made better:) Then the guys from RM could, or not, use them:)

[zOap]

Which leads me ALL the way back to the point I usually make about racks: why not just do most of your routing and stuff within the rack itself?

Greg

But, you can't do all the routing inside the rack if you need a signal that is outside the rack. Most of it yes, but what about key inputs/chaining? Then you would have to copy the rack and alter the input goes to option.

[IIRs]

IIRs-- sure, it's just easier to copy the rack, but that doesn't make the number of input devices make any sense. The output devices, sure, but what are the input devices? I'm not saying the functionality's not there, I'm saying: "I don't understand what the heck the new input devices use as their source" and nobody's answered that yet. I'm not being adversarial, I'm just saying that I seriously don't know/don't understand.

The inputs work much like the outputs: any track with a rack filter inserted is routed to the inputs selected on that rack filter. Eg: a rack with "audio" and "sidechain" inputs can have copies dragged to the kick & bass tracks. The bass track can then be routed to the "audio" inputs by choosing those on its rack filter, while the kick is routed to the "sidechain" ins in the same way.

Thats why I prefer the current arrangement to any alternatives suggested so far btw: the presence of a rack filter on a track acts as a visual indication that is connected to a rack in some way and is not simply linear L->R.

[Lunch Money]

I still don't get it, IIRs, but that's not your fault. I'm having a failure to understand the way the inputs work and relate to the outputs. Purely my own dumbosity, which would be more easily solved by me fooling around with it than by having you try to explain it.

BUT, since we're already on it, let me give it a try:

I have a rack called, "Sidechain Comp with Key"-- it defaults to the normal 2 inputs, but I add one called, "Key input"

I put an instance of the rack on my drum track, and an instance on my bass track, with the bass being the key used to compress the drum.

I connect all 3 new inputs to the stereo sidechain comp, connecting them to their appropriate spots.

How do I get the bass track to NOT go through the compressor, but ONLY to send a signal along the key cable? If I disconnect the "left/right" cables, they get disconnected in the other instance (naturally).

Nobody seems to understand what I'm asking or what my problem is because they already understand how it works. That's the trouble is relating to a guy who doesn't "get" it and explaining it in a way that he would "get" it. You're jumping too many steps in the process for me to follow.

Greg

[Lunch Money]

In fact, back it up a step, to the ORIGINAL question when I admitted I don't get it and that I can relate to zOap's complaint:

I add a new input. There's no signal on it! I can drag it all the way to both outputs and there's no sound. So how do I get the new input to carry a signal?

[IIRs]

I have a rack called, "Sidechain Comp with Key"-- it defaults to the normal 2 inputs, but I add one called, "Key input"

I put an instance of the rack on my drum track, and an instance on my bass track, with the bass being the key used to compress the drum.

I connect all 3 new inputs to the stereo sidechain comp, connecting them to their appropriate spots.

How do I get the bass track to NOT go through the compressor, but ONLY to send a signal along the key cable?

Choose the "Key input" for both inputs on the bass channel's rack filter. Then set it to pass 100% dry signal and 0% wet so you don't have the compressed drums emerging on the bass track. Thats it!



For your example the "left input goes to" and "right input goes to" fields would be "Key input"

[Samb]

Greg, I think the "trick" to getting racks is to understand that they are actually made of two parts: the rack itself, which doesn't actually sit on any of the tracks, but has its own separate space. And the "rack filters" which do sit on the tracks and are purely a combined send and return to the actual rack. A lot of the confusion to do with racks is because this is not made clear, especially the "drag this to insert an instance of this rack" icon is, in my opinion mis-labelled: "instance" is simply the wrong word and should be replaced by "send/return", or something similar. Once you get this then everything to do with racks becomes clear (or it did for me).

So, to get the bass to go to the sidechain, don't touch any of the cables in the rack, but set the send/return/rack filter on the bass track to send to the sidechain only.

Hope that helps and isn't too patronising

[Lunch Money]

SNAP! Now I see.

Cheers, IIRs, and thanks Samb. I totally understand that the rack has its own space and that "instances" of it are shadows. That part wasn't a problem for me. The problem was assigning the 'role' of each of the inputs. I thought that BECAUSE it was just a shadow of the original, changing the "input goes to" values would ALSO change for all copies of the rack.

That, and I kept wanting to change "Input comes from" instead of "Input goes to", though now that I finally had some puzzle pieces fall into place, I can see why the "Input comes from" is only giving me the option of a stereo pair.

I'm still a few steps short of fully grasping how to manipulate the inputs, but that's a HUGE piece of the puzzle finally in place for me.

Strangely enough, this is exactly what I was getting at, though-- wouldn't it be more intuitive to have the options being the tracks themselves? For example, let's say I have tracks 1-3 all feeding into track 4. Then, whenever I make a rack in track 4, I have the option of choosing between all 6 (or the summed left and right, as it already stands) of the channels being fed into it? I dunno, I'm not sure how to articulate what I think is still missing, but there IS a part that's missing and it's probably more to do with the naming conventions and the way the options are sorted than the actual routing itself.

Greg

[Samb]

And as for the tracks appearing as input devices, this is something I'm not too keen on for the following reasons.

Firstly, a purely selfish reason: the only functionality it adds over any other similar method is real time recording of random vst outputs - something I never use and, I suspect, few others do either.

Secondly, it would make the input area unneccesarily cluttered if all you are doing is re-routing one track into another and then leaving it like that. Again a fairly selfish reason, but it's something I don't think I would like the feel of, if you see what I mean?

[Lunch Money]

Sure, but I'm the opposite. I like it better than the drop-down destination box, which doesn't give you much of a visual representation of what's being fed into it. With the track input idea, you SEE a little icon called "Track 3" that's pointed at Track 5, so you get instant recognition that you've routed track 3 to a spot other than the main output. And since it becomes another audio input device, you can then do whatever else you want with it including (and you're possibly right that it's the ONLY advantage! I can't think of others either!) recording the information.

In summary, I see 2 benefits:

1. Visual feedback of where the tracks are pointing
2. Ability to record another track in realtime instead of relying on things like TapeIt which can be unwieldly.

Now, although I offered it as a suggestion, let me be very quick in adding that I now see that this particular suggestion has little if anything to do with the way racks work or could work.

If Mackie/RMS ends up adding the option to point one device at multiple tracks (a current FR that seems to have several advocates), you then have the option to take your new "Track 3" audio device and point it all over the place instead of just to one other track!

Ooo, Ooo... PLUS, drag'n'point OR one-click reassign (depending on input device view used) to change it up if you need to or want to, which is at LEAST as convenient as the current drop-down menu, and COULD be seen by some as MORE convenient.

AND, ultimately, going back to the visual thing (so this is more like a sub-point of my first point), it fits the left-to-right paradigm of Tracktion. Instead of some hidden pull-down menu, you see that the end of Track 3 is now pointing at the beginning of Track 5, and the left-to-right remains intact visually.