What's the point of mixers in software sequencers?

[kilroy]

Also, I think actually working with a mixer, or a midi device that emulates one for you DAW would change your mind in an instant.

Yep...working with really good hardware desks has totally convinced me that virtual mixers are, by and large, toys in comparison.




Jeez...thank heaven for this chap -------> tonight.

[Lunch Money]

Hardware mixers are a different story, Apflaum. We're talking about 'fake hardware mixers' within software. There's not really much point for'em.

Greg

[ghost666]

I like the pretty lights on 'em!

...

Sometimes you can get interesting rhythmic patterns across the channel LED ladders by carefully arranging percussive hits across a bunch of tracks and looping the sequence. Then for maximum wow factor, buss the tracks out to your desk so they show up on some *really* serious meters.

Try 32 tracks offset by 2 beats, and experiment with different tempos.

An oscillating "wave" pattern at 240 bpm is quite impressive.

...

Nice!

[Rellik]

Depends how they're utilized.

In FL Studio, the Mixer level is applied after the Insert effects. The individual channel volume is pre-effects.

Thus, the Mixer is simply an analogy for a post-effects mixing phase, whereas the pre-effects mixing phase is done in the knobs that are right there next to the instances. This makes sense to me - you see the final, compressed or distorted or effected or wahtever you want, signal in the Mixer, and the Mixer slider controls the level of that. It's not so much the level of the synth/audio that you're changing - it's the level of the whole chain.

And that's why I like the mixer! In FL Studio, at least - as I mentioned, don't know how it's utilized in Live. You see your FINAL sound, at the end of the chain, right before the summation to the Master track, all added up and set in a row - and from there you can make EQ/pan/effect/level tweaks all at once.

I'm one of those people who mixes as they create as well, so it works out very well for me to be able to create fine-tuned mixes on the fly

[Lunch Money]

Agreed. By the time I get to the final mix phase, I like to have everything at least in the 'ballpark'.

[superddman]

From reading the replies one main concept arises, which is, mixers are good for the final stages after you have composed the whole song.
I will somewhat agree with this.

However, I even got used to doing this part right in the arrange window.

Having a visual overview of the whole song at all times is really important to me.

[Lunch Money]

Oh, I'm still with you. I do my final mix in the 'arrange window' (ie. the only non-configuration or clip pool related window) in Tracktion.

[superddman]

Oh, I'm still with you. I do my final mix in the 'arrange window' (ie. the only non-configuration or clip pool related window) in Tracktion.

ya, we understand eachother exactly.

When I started using software sequencers, I was like "WOW!! this sequencer has such a cool mixer, I feel like now I own a huge hardware mixer, I will definitely use this software"
Then, after producing for a while I have started to notice that the mixer only screwed up my workflow.

I think some people get enjoyment from software that replicates real hardware. Even that this software has many drawbacks, it gives them (me at one point) that professional feel .
As an analogy here I will use probably the best example possible, Reason.
Reason ranks probably lower then N-track Studio on my list of sequencers. (yes, I consider reason as a sequencer too, well, they even advertise it as all-in-one music making app)
Now, with Reason they emulated a real hardware rack. The only advantage (not for me, maybe for some cabling enthusiasts) is the ability to route the devices as the real thing. But lets think, other then that what other advantage do we get?
By the end of a whole song you will end up with 1 km long rack. Why on earth do I need that?

My point here is, software should speed up work, not slow it. Software has ability to overcome physical drawbacks of the hardware. Why should they be replicated?

Taking the mixer components and effectively integrating them right into the arrange window will let you concentrate on the song rather then looking at a pretty mixer.

[ford442]

i couldnt get by without software mixers - many VSTs don't have any volume control - and in my experience those that do have it require an extra boost to get level with other software and hardware plus panning - and say you have some hardware effect units - then you want to set the volume of your midi'd hardware and the incomming audio seperatly right?

[IIRs]

i couldnt get by without software mixers - many VSTs don't have any volume control - and in my experience those that do have it require an extra boost to get level with other software and hardware plus panning - and say you have some hardware effect units - then you want to set the volume of your midi'd hardware and the incomming audio seperatly right?

Tracktion has no "mixer", but it is more powerful & flexible in the volume control and sub-grouping departments than most that do..

[SparkySpark]

My point here is, software should speed up work, not slow it. Software has ability to overcome physical drawbacks of the hardware. Why should they be replicated?

Man, can you be my buddy!

I totally agree. However, I can come to think of a set of fx that do this great - the Kjaerhus free fx. They take up only small screen space and still have all the knobs as the hardware units would have. This makes them fast to work with and it's also very pedagogical for new-born musicians, who don't get the concept of e.g. compressor settings.

/SparkySpark

[BONES]

Having a visual overview of the whole song at all times is really important to me.

That's what a proper mixer should give you. What passes for a mixer in most sequencers is a useless joke. I couldn't possibly work without ORION's mixer, it is the hub of my studio.

[kritikon]

From reading the replies one main concept arises, which is, mixers are good for the final stages after you have composed the whole song.

Horses for courses, mate. It all depends on how you work - some here work visually it seems. I suspect the majority don't though.

I can turn around the question equally well and ask why do sequencers all rely on arrange pages and visual cues? I can come up with a whole load of arguments about the reason music can be so dull and lifeless is that too many people rely on visual cues rather than their ears. A mixer forces you to use your ears and mix accordingly.

How many times do you see people composing with their eyes glued to the screen? - they can't do anything without watching the screen - they're locked into that way of working just as much as someone used to working with mixers. And you extend that into FX settings and all kinds of other things - if it's not visual they don't like it, and when it boils down to it, music is nothing to do with visuals is it? Visual composition and mixing is responsible for many of the woes of modern music IMO. I like my sequencers and s/w, but still it's not a good way to do everything.

So you mix as you go - many don't. Sometimes I do myself, but I may also decide I want to change the emphasis on a song completely before I'm even finished recording everything, or even haven't come up with half of the ideas yet. I and many find a mixer the best way to do that - I might want to change comparative levels of every single channel sometimes, and a mixer makes that extremely easy. The pattern of my parts and sequences bears no relation whatsoever to the quality of the sound I hear, and I prefer it that way thanks.


Quite honestly if I saw a host without any form of mixer, I wouldn't even load it up to demo it, because immediately I'd know it was useless to me.
And that's why I ended up with one of the major hosts for such a long time - because mostly it lets me work in the way I want...I can work without or with a mixer. I don't want some half-assed host that makes me work in an alien way. If you find a mixer useless, then reformat your host the way you want.



I'd rather trust my ears than my eyes though.

[apflaum]

it obviously whatever works best for you. If you make your best music with a kazoo, great, don't stop.

I have to defend reason though. To a lot of people it makes sense. Seriously. For me, trying to make loops in FL studios step sequencer and than using those to play over a super long midi track (piano roll), is just ridiculous. Using Live's loops are very similair. Also, as an instrument, it's capabilities are awesome because of the hardware interface. In 2 mins I can run each individual drum in redrum through a sperate instance of maelstroms filters and than to their own individual mixer, so i can have total control over every drum. Than I can use four send effects on any drum I choose. And this is all low cpu still! Doing this with vsts would be ridiculous and I would have no cpu left at all.

Its a great instrument, a weak daw, and a realistic sequencer/mixer. Use rewire.

[DevonB]

My point here is, software should speed up work, not slow it. Software has ability to overcome physical drawbacks of the hardware. Why should they be replicated?

Something that's well designed should speed up work flow, hardware or software. Being able to physically grab something instead of trying to mouse click does tend to speed things up. Software is better for automation, but I'd be hard pressed to say software is quicker for mixing.

Devon