If there's one thing I hated about every app I demoed in the last few month, it's this unintuitive, disfunctional representation of a hardware mixer in software.
I mean, you have all your track, either midi or audio, nicely displayed in a linear fashion right in front of you where it's easy to see, at a glance, where you're at, what's playing and where everything is in relation to each other; ok, you want to bring the kick drum down a notch... You then have to bring this other window up which bears absolutely no relation to the track view in front of your nicely laid out track, and try to find which slider, amongst all the slider, and without any visual cue or any type of relation whatsoever, which one means the kick drum...Yeeeeechhh!
So many peoples want this, there surely is something I'm missing here, so I ask:
What is it?
What's this mixer obsession?
-
nuisance sonore nuisance sonore https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=40314
- KVRian
- 1088 posts since 11 Sep, 2004 from 45° 31' 60N 73° 28' 60W
Quote of the day: "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."--Elbert Hubbard 1856-1915
-
- KVRAF
- 2427 posts since 13 Sep, 2004
Dunno ,I helped out when Rackbitz was creating the TF mixer and dont get me wrong it sounds real nice but i haven't used it once ,Its quite funny really when i first built my studio i had a 24 channel Seck desk (long time ago amiga days) and now the only mixer i use is my Stanton scratch mixer for recording tablism and its only two channels and really the same ethos applies and that is that nowadays my studio is less cluttered and easier to use and so is my sequencer.
Still if Mackie where to make a mixer plugin ala TF mixer i think quite a few people would probably buy it judging the posts around here
Still if Mackie where to make a mixer plugin ala TF mixer i think quite a few people would probably buy it judging the posts around here
Omerta
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Yaw, but they're nutbars. 
No mixer obsession here, that's fa sheezy.
No mixer obsession here, that's fa sheezy.
-
- KVRist
- 73 posts since 25 Mar, 2004 from Sydney, Australia
Can't help you. Being a newbie to the desktop music thing I've only ever used Tracktion! I can't even imagine what this mythical thing known as "a mixer" does.Ezy Ryder wrote:So many peoples want this, there surely is something I'm missing here, so I ask: What is it?
How does a mixer differ from the volume and pan controls at the end of each track?
I use racks for sends is this related to "a mixer"?
-
- KVRian
- 1161 posts since 24 Dec, 2004 from Adelaide, South Australia
I think a lot of audio software developers misunderstand what's important. Some of them tend to use software as an emulation of hardware which is silly, because software is far more flexible in terms of routing and features. Theoretically, a programmer could develope a software mixer without equivalent in the hardware world and pack in tons of new features for the user.
It's like VST instrument developers. There's still this ethos of hardware imitation and emulation. I mean, look at Propellerheads. A fine example of hardware interface emulation translated to software gone mad. I've used Reason and I think it's poor. It has a wow-cool-X factor, but it is limited because they decided to go the road of emulating archaic hardware design. It's squinty (all those little knobs), it's not really composer friendly and despite cool graphics and moving wires, it's a limited system with an emphasis on packaged loops.
Having said all that, the only reason I need a mixer in my studio is to connect my hardware synthesizers and into the sound card for direct recording purposes.
It's like VST instrument developers. There's still this ethos of hardware imitation and emulation. I mean, look at Propellerheads. A fine example of hardware interface emulation translated to software gone mad. I've used Reason and I think it's poor. It has a wow-cool-X factor, but it is limited because they decided to go the road of emulating archaic hardware design. It's squinty (all those little knobs), it's not really composer friendly and despite cool graphics and moving wires, it's a limited system with an emphasis on packaged loops.
Having said all that, the only reason I need a mixer in my studio is to connect my hardware synthesizers and into the sound card for direct recording purposes.
Mixcraft 8 Recording Studio : Reason 10
-
- KVRian
- 666 posts since 5 Jan, 2004
Couldn´t agree more on this, I was going to say it but you hit the spot before me.audiobot202 wrote:I think a lot of audio software developers misunderstand what's important. Some of them tend to use software as an emulation of hardware which is silly, because software is far more flexible in terms of routing and features.
...
It's like VST instrument developers. There's still this ethos of hardware imitation and emulation. I mean, look at Propellerheads.
...
It's squinty (all those little knobs), it's not really composer friendly ... despite cool graphics and moving wires...
Having said all that, the only reason I need a mixer in my studio is to connect my hardware synthesizers and into the sound card for direct recording purposes.
For example, I get upset every time I see a new VST-instrument from Arturia. It´s f*cking ridiculous how wrong in the head some people are when they design software instruments the way Arturia do.
Why not at least make two GUIs,
- one for the nerds/fanatics who want the GUI to be as user hostile as the original synth (and probably would just look at the synth rather than play it), and
- one for the users who just want a synth with great sounds and ease of use to *make music*.
The "big sequencers" like Cubase and lot of the VST-instruments around, are warning examples of developers who live in the past and don´t use the new VST-paradigm to its advantage. Such a shame. Such a shame.
Last edited by klagga on Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRist
- 453 posts since 10 Jul, 2003 from Rotterdam
sadly i think the 'wow-cool', visually impressive element of apps that have mixer pages still sells a lot of software.
Mixerless tracktion doesn't have any screens packed to the brim with visual complexity. and i think that for many people it's still hard to conceive that something so visually simple (and bare looking in comparison to most traditional seqs) can be as (if not more) powerful than something sporting endless rows of photorealistic faders and tiny buttons.
--
one other thng of course is that people coming from a hardware mixing background feel at home with something that looks similar to what they're used to.
and some folks starting out want to use something that looks like a software version of that huge desk they saw in the pro studio on tv.
the look of a hardware mixer has become a kind of icon representing music recording in the modern age. software solutions like tracktion's way of mixing kind of dissolve the idea of a mixer as a single unit and in the same stroke, they loose the instantly identifiable 'mixer look'. most people using tracktion know that this doesn't matter but i bet that for many on the outside.. tracktion has a disadvantage just because it doesn't include this powerful icon.
Mixerless tracktion doesn't have any screens packed to the brim with visual complexity. and i think that for many people it's still hard to conceive that something so visually simple (and bare looking in comparison to most traditional seqs) can be as (if not more) powerful than something sporting endless rows of photorealistic faders and tiny buttons.
--
one other thng of course is that people coming from a hardware mixing background feel at home with something that looks similar to what they're used to.
and some folks starting out want to use something that looks like a software version of that huge desk they saw in the pro studio on tv.
the look of a hardware mixer has become a kind of icon representing music recording in the modern age. software solutions like tracktion's way of mixing kind of dissolve the idea of a mixer as a single unit and in the same stroke, they loose the instantly identifiable 'mixer look'. most people using tracktion know that this doesn't matter
but i bet that for many on the outside.. tracktion has a disadvantage just because it doesn't include this powerful icon.-
- KVRian
- 1161 posts since 24 Dec, 2004 from Adelaide, South Australia
It always interests me that in magazine such as FM or CM, those big sequencers are pushed so hard, despite some very obvious problems (as in the CPU hunger of Live 4), and there seems to be an underlying concern with the 'cool' factor.klagga wrote: The "big sequencers" like Cubase and lot of the VST-instruments around, are warning examples of developers who live in the past and don´t use the new VST-paradigm to its advantage. Such a shame. Such a shame.
This is, of course, the reason. Spot on. It's good to see Tracktion and even software like Live buck the traditional system of layout. I'd like to see more of this thinking though. Haven't we had enough of complex GUIs and mixer pages? The main reason I like Tracktion (even despite some flaws) is because it is easy to navigate.cbit wrote:one other thng of course is that people coming from a hardware mixing background feel at home with something that looks similar to what they're used to
Mixcraft 8 Recording Studio : Reason 10
-
- KVRAF
- 4878 posts since 13 Jun, 2002 from Montreal
I find the routing of sends impossibly cumbersome in Tracktion - racks are confusing - it is difficult to see how inputs and outputs are routed. Please correct me if I am missing something. I no longer use Tracktion as much as I would like for this reason. I need tracks just as they are with may a linear effects chain each, then no mixer is needed. But I usually use multioutput instruments like ST2, Kontakt or Dr008 etc., and apply effect selectively to various outputs. I do see the point of simpliicity but the I (and I am sure others also) need flexible routing and that means (to me at least) a mixer function.
-
- KVRist
- 68 posts since 9 Jul, 2003
After using tracktion so long I dont know if I could go back to using a software mixer. Please NO TRACKTION MIXER!! Spend the devlopment time elsewhere.
-
- KVRist
- 141 posts since 13 Oct, 2003
I don't think you have anything to worry about. Tracktion is being marketed by a company that develops mixers. Tracktion not having a traditional "mixer" was probably one of the big selling points on marketing it. It helps them sell more.. mixers and control surfaces.
Some people are just used to mixing with a more traditional looking mixer thats all. I tend to do some basic mixing and most of the effect processing in T and then I sub stuff back out to my motu, into a mackie cfx12 (see.. it worked on me too!), and back into T on one stereo track.
Some people are just used to mixing with a more traditional looking mixer thats all. I tend to do some basic mixing and most of the effect processing in T and then I sub stuff back out to my motu, into a mackie cfx12 (see.. it worked on me too!), and back into T on one stereo track.
-
- KVRist
- 235 posts since 16 Apr, 2003 from Norway
I don't see the point in adding a mixer to Tracktion. It works just fine the way it is. However, I'm with Beardedone on the issue of complexity when it comes to sends.
I'd really like to see this aspect of the software improved in v2.
Beardedone: I noticed you use DR-008. Have you tried putting it inside a rack? As you probably know, you can set the number of stereo outs and aux sends in the DR-008 options menu.
I usually have one stereo out, which is connected to the main rack outs. Then I have an additional two aux sends, which are connected to e.g. a delay and a reverb. These effects are in turn fed to the main rack outputs.
This way, the drums only use one track in Tracktion, but you still have different effects for different sounds. If you find a setup you like and use often, just save the rack preset for quick reloading later.
I'd really like to see this aspect of the software improved in v2.
Beardedone: I noticed you use DR-008. Have you tried putting it inside a rack? As you probably know, you can set the number of stereo outs and aux sends in the DR-008 options menu.
I usually have one stereo out, which is connected to the main rack outs. Then I have an additional two aux sends, which are connected to e.g. a delay and a reverb. These effects are in turn fed to the main rack outputs.
This way, the drums only use one track in Tracktion, but you still have different effects for different sounds. If you find a setup you like and use often, just save the rack preset for quick reloading later.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
As far as I can see the only mixer obsession is coming from those who don't have one. Nobody outside of the Tracktion community ever mentions it.
Is it some kind of software penis envy?
Is it some kind of software penis envy?
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
Hah! I have a hardware mixer, and can mix in Tracktion happily without thatnuffink wrote:As far as I can see the only mixer obsession is coming from those who don't have one.
If you analyse the threads more carefully, it's lately all coming from just one dude...