tracktion mixer

[AD80]

[Mr. Tingle]

The point about Tracktion is that it lets you edit in an holistic manner and it does that by having all the elements you need to manipulate the music all on one screen. This lets the abstract part of our minds that conceives music to have a representation that corresponds to ideas as a whole.. honest.

[metamorphosis]

A mixer is a waste of time - there's already one there - it's just that it's horizontal, you know, like the layout of the music, rather than obselete hardware...
m@t

[audiobot202]

Not this stupid argument again.
A mixer mixes sound sources together. Tracktion mixes sound sources together. Therefore, Tracktion is a mixer.
What some people seem to want is the traditional 'look' of a mixer. Personally I hate them. They're boxy, chunky and frankly, pointless when you can do it all in Tracktion as is.
The only points of any worth in this thread are being able to implement a system in Tracktion that allows lockable filter sizes so one does not need to squint at times, or some other visual system that allows clearer filter labels.
Still, unless you plan to stack a dozen filters after your track, I don't really think it's that much of an issue. I rarely open the wrong filter as is.
Why don't I use Cubase? Because to me, it's overcomplex and obsolete. So the question is not why Trackion doesn't have a mixer, but why are you using it if this 'feature' annoys you so much?
I don't know about you, but if I don't like a piece of software completely I tend to move to something else. It's horses for courses people. Move on or stick with it.

[Lunch Money]

Lockable filter sizes would solve it all at once for me, along with the suggestion of "hide all filters except vol/pan"

Someone mentioned level meters... I dunno. Level meters are useless. I like them there for a placebo effect, so that I can see pretty lights bouncing around, but the fact is that they mean nothing to me. I have never ever wanted to look at a meter in order to help me mix, except for right at the very very beginning with drum and bass. Once I have drum and bass levels set, everything else is by ear.

I can't imagine even in a "mixer page" like other hosts have, how seeing 30 tracks worth of bouncing lights could possibly help your mix. I listen to the song and hear "Shit, the French Horns are too loud", I don't look at a bouncing light and say, "I can see that my French Horns are too loud!"

I think level meters in general really are primarily a placebo effect thing, and if they're not, they SHOULD be, since your ears will tell you far more than your meters ever could.

Greg

[AD80]

I don't know about you, but if I don't like a piece of software completely I tend to move to something else.

Which is why I've been using Tracktion for over 2 years.

[pdxindy]

Lockable filter sizes would solve it all at once for me, along with the suggestion of "hide all filters except vol/pan"

Someone mentioned level meters... I dunno. Level meters are useless. I like them there for a placebo effect, so that I can see pretty lights bouncing around, but the fact is that they mean nothing to me. I have never ever wanted to look at a meter in order to help me mix, except for right at the very very beginning with drum and bass. Once I have drum and bass levels set, everything else is by ear.

I can't imagine even in a "mixer page" like other hosts have, how seeing 30 tracks worth of bouncing lights could possibly help your mix. I listen to the song and hear "Shit, the French Horns are too loud", I don't look at a bouncing light and say, "I can see that my French Horns are too loud!"

I think level meters in general really are primarily a placebo effect thing, and if they're not, they SHOULD be, since your ears will tell you far more than your meters ever could.

Greg

Much of the time when working on audio, I do not use a visual reference, but there are times when I do like it... and the more hours I have been sitting there working on the project that must be done by tommorow morning, the more my brain and ears get mushy and the more I need other reference points.

Sometimes when I am struggling with something that just does not sound right and everything I try aint quite it, a look at meters, or histograms makes me say, oh, of course...

Maybe seasoned pros do not need meters, but i still find them useful. That makes sense too, cause now when I look at a photo or video, I can just say what color correction it needs when I used to need the histogram and scope much more often.

cheers

[Lunch Money]

An EQ overview of the entire track is more of an analogy to the photo correction example, or at LEAST a properly sub-grouped mix. A 20+ track-count mix isn't the same, in terms of analogy. You can do full-mix or submix EQ, which would be analogous to your photograph corrections. Such EQ analysis is infinitely more useful than per-track level meters, and I'm certainly not a seasoned pro. I'm not even a seasoned amateur.

Let's take it to the track level, though, instead of full- or sub-mixes. You look at your overall frequency spectrum (not your level meters), and see way too much bass! Then you go to the tracks that generate bass frequencies and see what gives. Since you're intimate with your own mix, you'll know where to look, and level meters can't really point the way. Say for example you have a track that IS your bassline, and it's jacked up way too high. Your ears will have told you that before the level meters would anyhow.

Since your ears HAVEN'T told you that it's your bassline track, the level meters aren't giving you any more clues about what's generating the bass. Again, it's either your ears or simply your knowledge of what your mix is composed of... "Well, I have some low-register piano that I should check out, and maybe I haven't cut the low rumble out of my vocal track." These aren't things that level meters can tell you.

You still can't isolate the bass problem, so you start soloing tracks. What can the level meters tell you? Not much, because they're telling you the TOTAL energy across the entire frequency spectrum that's being generated. A level meter won't help me identify a low rumble in my vocal track... a spectrum analasis may, or if it's soloed, my ears may.

So, I'm not saying I'm totally against visual references. But per-track level meters aren't the clues that are going to help you out.

Greg

[flanneljammies]

When I'm tracking, I move the meters ahead of my Vol/Pan filters and when I'm done, I delete 'em.

[walleyI]

I'm Not sure what happened to it but the tracktion Faction mixer was OK. It was a bit of pain to set up and probably used more CPU resources that was worth if for the 8 or so tracks it could handle but at least it was tracktion specific and worked well. (Oh alright i admit it i also liked to see the bright flashing lights going up and down..... oohh look at the lights mummy etc etc)...

For my part it thought i was a shame they never did a larger version, (32 tracks plus sends. Even better a configurable version within the rack would have been excellent - as many tracks and busses as needs be... any sinth edit fans out there with nothing to do at the moment)? Whatever happened to tracktion faction anyways?

I think the arguments surrounding the "we don't want a mixer and we have a poll that shows thats the case" are a bit of a kop out. The people voting are by there very presence on this forum those who have tried and liked tracktion to the point that they have probably bought it. My question if I was Mackie would be how many more have looked at the demo and turned it down because of the lack of a mixer. They would not have been around for the BIG vote the no way hose camp are relying upon....

For my part i have no objections to vector mixing, but i do feel it gets a real pain when track counts start to wonder over the 20's (which it frequesntly does in my case). The "all in one screen" issue becomes an "all in one screen providing you're damed quick with your mouse scroll or have hellishly good eyesight, Particularly as all of the filters dissapear when you have all of the tracks on screen after you've gone beyond 30 odd. The answer to this IMHO is folder tracks and an optional mixer screen in order that you can bus tracks down to a manageable level and mix from within the mixer option. At least thats the way i see it. Yes I know that you can reroute channels within the existing system and thats the way i work at the moment to provide manageable groups and subgroups, but that just means more tracks - which simply compounds the problem of not being able to see what the hell is happening without putting the tracks to default height and scrolling like a maniac. Its just not tidy or clear using this method.

One other point. A reviewer of T2 in Home Recording magazine (september 2005 edition) bemoaned the fact that there was no mixer. In the article he states however that he had been told by Mackie that they were working on one. Does this mean that we are going to get a workable option at some point anyway?

Right. Whinge over.... did anyone else manage to read this far without keeling over from boredom?

Wal.

[djsubject]

woah dj subject where did you get that badass patchmix skin?

http://www.productionforums.com/index.php?f=30



Subz

[Lunch Money]

Wally,

It's pretty irrelevant to speculate about how many more customers Tracktion would have with the addition of a mixer. Like speculating how many fewer customers it would have had WITH one. A pretty strong point of reference is looking back to the beginning phases-- Jules generated enough interest and therefore revenue because of a different approach. Had he not used a different approach, it may have ended up like any other generic Cubase-alike host. And a stated FACT is that it was developed specifically as a response AGAINST such programs.

Point being, it's just as easy for me to say that Tracktion wouldn't exist if Jules liked mixers, and it wouldn't have gained the early revenue and buzz if it was conventional.

Addressing specific concerns, though:

It gets me that people get so worried about the filter size. It's like they forget how Tracktion works.

1 - hover your cursor over the filter. It doesn't matter how small the filter is, it's never SO small that you can't at least hover over it until the icon changes

2 - when you see the icon become an up/down arrow, click. Suddenly a SIZEABLE volume filter appears... meaning that you're not actually mixing with the wee little filter icon, you're mixing with the new level strip, or using the properties panel which also gives a numerical readout.

3 - release mouse button and shift slightly to the left or right until the left/right arrow appears. Click, and adjust the pan. No slider appears, but you CAN use the properties panel down below, which also gives numerical information.

I've just tried it with the filter about as small as you can get it before it disappears, and there's still enough pixel real estate that it's not actually fiddly at all. Anybody who insists it's difficult to get those arrows on the icons to appear are probably just being argumentative. Give it a try before replying back and you'll see for yourself!

Furthermore, if you really insist that it's too fiddly, you just click the filter itself and then move the sliders in the property panel, OR... which is what I do more often than not anyhow because I like accuracy:

Enter the vol/pan information numerically.

Don't let your eyes fool you. I agree that when they get small they sure LOOK damn fiddly. Who could argue against that? But when you actually put it into practice the way I've describe, it turns out that it's well implemented after all!

Oops, I lied with the word "finally"... one more option:

Double-click the track you're currently mixing and expand it. Double-click it again and it returns to the size it was previously at.

I just don't see it as even a minor inconvenience. It's exactly the way it should be.

Greg

[pdxindy]

1 - hover your cursor over the filter. It doesn't matter how small the filter is, it's never SO small that you can't at least hover over it until the icon changes

2 - when you see the icon become an up/down arrow, click. Suddenly a SIZEABLE volume filter appears... meaning that you're not actually mixing with the wee little filter icon, you're mixing with the new level strip, or using the properties panel which also gives a numerical readout.

3 - release mouse button and shift slightly to the left or right until the left/right arrow appears. Click, and adjust the pan. No slider appears, but you CAN use the properties panel down below, which also gives numerical information.

I've just tried it with the filter about as small as you can get it before it disappears, and there's still enough pixel real estate that it's not actually fiddly at all. Anybody who insists it's difficult to get those arrows on the icons to appear are probably just being argumentative. Give it a try before replying back and you'll see for yourself!

Furthermore, if you really insist that it's too fiddly, you just click the filter itself and then move the sliders in the property panel, OR... which is what I do more often than not anyhow because I like accuracy:

Enter the vol/pan information numerically.

Don't let your eyes fool you. I agree that when they get small they sure LOOK damn fiddly. Who could argue against that? But when you actually put it into practice the way I've describe, it turns out that it's well implemented after all!

Greg

It certainly is well implemented. I am in the I don't need a mixer camp and I have no real complaint about these issues.

It is a minor request from me to have a fixed size filter option. I would like it, but if it never happened I would not lose any sleep.

In fact, I would not be terribly upset if Tracktion were never updated again and I only had v2. I get stuff done with it. Since there will be upgrades, I add my thoughts about what I would like to see.

[Lunch Money]

Well, I admit, fixed filter sizes would still be handy, if for no other reason than keeping your vol/pan filters all lined up.

[pdxindy]

Well, I admit, fixed filter sizes would still be handy, if for no other reason than keeping your vol/pan filters all lined up.

exactly