Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-29-2006, 02:47 PM   #1
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default Sorry, I don't like this whole "folder tracks" thingy...:(

I would like to see "real" buss assignment. A way in the "master section" to create a new stereo buss, and when you do, each track can now be assigned to that buss. In addition, to make this like a real console, you would need to be able to assign to ANY and ALL busses.

Also, I can't seem to be able to scroll down the tracks in any way except to click on the scroll bar on the right. I love scroll wheel zoom, but sometimes, I have 30 or more tracks running, and need to scroll down to one of them then zoom in. While I appreciate the "global" "track height" function when you do Ctrl>Scoll Wheel, I think that would be better served as the way to scroll down the track window to tracks out of site, rather than having to use the scroll bar on the right.

Sonar allow a per track height adjustment, and has a global way of adjusting them all at once. I don't really do too much of the global adjustments, but definately will adjust individual track heights quite a bit. BUT, I could really care much about the global function to have in it's place a way to Ctrl>scroll wheel to get to tracks up and down in the screen from where I am at.

I don't dig the FX scheme. Placeholders work great. I seldomly have "chains" that I use all the time. While I see that value in that, I think you can just offer the list simply by right clicking on the FX via a drop down menu of the available plugins.

I was going to attempt a mix in Reaper today, but the above stuff frustrated me to the point that I gave up. The current "bussing" scheme is not very intuitive, and not anything like a real mixing console. While I can see the value in what you are doing, I honestly don't think many people are going to benefit from it's versatility. But us "old timers" who have spent too many years on analog desks REALLY would want to see a layout more like an analog desk.

Simply, in the "Master Section" (which you might have to define now...but you could just use the "mixer" window, have a right click function that allow you do create a new stereo buss. This buss of course will have all functions that a "track" would: Direct hardware out, panning, volume, effects, able to go to OTHER busses!, etc... Then, once this buss is created, when you right click on on the output for a track, you can select that buss. You could just list ONLY the busses available as well as hardware outs (this is how Sonar does it), and use the "check any/all that you want" method for multiple routings. Does that make sense? THEN, all tracks have access to this new buss. The buss should have a default name of "buss 1", "buss 2" or whatever so you don't really HAVE to name them right away.

The stereo buss would follow track panning of course. Although, it would be REALLY cool to allow the left and right of the buss output to be panned, and adjusted seperately if you wanted too! This would solve a LOT of problems with "side chain"!!! Of course, you might need to have a seperate pan available for that buss so that if say you route a kick drum to the "master buss" and say "buss 1", you could keep the kick drum centered in the master buss, but panned hard left in "buss 1". This would be a great way to throw a stereo compressor on that stereo buss, assign the kick drum (panned left via the buss pan!) and assing the bass guitar (panned right via it's buss 1 pan) throw a stereo compressor on there that is triggering off of the left channel, then on the output of the buss, you can lower the left channels output, and pan the left channel to the stereo buss! VOLA!!!! You a very good work around for "side chain" compression! pipelineaudio currently uses a plugin that does this, and if need be, you could forego the option of seperate pan/volumes on the buss output like I described.

Anyway, this buss stuff HAS to change for me to even consider this app as a serious mixing app. I refuse to work in this current way. Sorry, there is a LOT of cool stuff here, but this bussing scheme is not easy to understand, and creates too many problems with layout and what not.

Also, it really shouldn't be that hard to allow the "track" and "mixer" windows to be resized when they are on the same screen, and the mixer window to be resized when it is "un-docked" from the main screen and on another monitor. This is a realestate issue!
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 03:19 PM   #2
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

My and pipelineaudio are talking about a "buss" proposal. So, some of the above stuff may not be pertinent after that.

pipe will post the "unified" proposal.
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 03:28 PM   #3
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
Default

I agree with your points on busses and folder tracks. To me they are really two different things and should be seperated and treated as such.

For me Folder tracks are an organizational tool. For instance, a the way I use folder tracks are like this. Normally I have 6 tracks which I call my "Record Input Tracks". I put all these tracks grouped on a folder track. I do all my recording on these tracks, then move the keeper takes onto seperate tracks for composite editing of takes. When I'm done with most of my recording, and ready for mixing and more editing, I minimize these record tracks, so that they're no longer taken unneeded screen space. I really don't want all these tracks going to the same bus output. Additionally, I'll use folder tracks for grouping ALL my guitar tracks. I don't want all my guitar tracks necessarily going to the same bus though. So when I'm not working on the guitar tracks, and working on drum tracks, then I'll minize the folder track, so that my grouped guitar tracks are out of the way. I definately don't want all my guitar tracks going to the same bus though.

The exact opposite now, on buses. Tracks that I want to go to the same bus may not normally be grouped together in the track fader view, but I still would like the ability to route them to the same bus. So I should be able to route any track to any bus that I create, and it is independant of the order in which they layed out on the track fader view.

So that's what I see as a summary of what is wrong with the bus system and track folder system. They're currently combined into one single feature, where they should be 2 seperate features, because they have independant functions.

Sonusman is also correct on the fader header heights. I didn't mention anything about this because, I just figured it was still in the works. A global track fader height is good when creating new audio tracks, but when we're working with individual tracks in a project then we need to be able to freely resize each track individually. Either we're making it larger because that is our current focus of attention and we need to see the waveform better, or we're making it smaller to create more screen space since it's not our focus of attention.

Everything that Sonusman mentions, and how I further outlined can be seen in Acid 5, as well as Sonar. Except, I don't know if Sonar has folder tracks since I don't have S5. Acid has both, and I prefer the Acid method where they are treated as seperate items.

In Acid for Folder Tracks, you create a folder track. Any track that you want to be part of that folder track, you just drag and drop it into the folder. The folder track only has Mute and Solo functions on it, for muting all the tracks in that folder or soloing all the tracks. It's not treated as a bus where you can adjust the volume of all those tracks. That's what a bus is for.

Last edited by Rednroll; 01-29-2006 at 03:32 PM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 03:29 PM   #4
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 15,721
Default

How about we make "busses" as they are now called "folders", and add a new bus type..

btw, you can undock the mixer view from the track view, and resize it independently...


-Justin
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 03:41 PM   #5
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
Default

Yes, that would do it. Then create a new bus type like you said, and have it so that a track can be routed to it under the track I/O.

My only concern is leaving the current folder track as it is. Do we need Volume, pan, and FX's on a folder track? The only ones that make sense to me are mute and solo. I could also envision possibly a volume adustment, and what this would do would allow you to grab a single fader, and when you adjusted that fader then all the faders of the tracks in that folder track would move together. Thus it would function like a Fader Group, where the Folder tracks fader is your master fader control for all the tracks grouped in that folder track.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 03:44 PM   #6
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
How about we make "busses" as they are now called "folders", and add a new bus type..

btw, you can undock the mixer view from the track view, and resize it independently...


-Justin
Yes, I seen how you could undock the mixer. BUT, you can't TRUELY resize it. You can resize the width, but not the height. You also don't get the relational "pull from the corner" resize thing that most windows have.

But when it is "docked", you should be able to resize the height if you want. There are times when in the same window, it would be handy to just drag it up.

What would be sort of handy is to further slip the mixer window into segments that you could arrange as you like. The ones here are so short that you could have several rows of them on the screen, but they just go left to right, and when you run out of screen, you have to use the scroll bar. What if the Tracks, Busses, and Auxs were all independent in the mix view and could be arranged? THAT would be slick!

I use dual monitors, and being able to customize FULLY how I lay out different windows would surely be very good.

Anyway, in Vegas when you have the mixer section docked to the main screen, you can at least adjust the height.

In Sonar, the "master" section, which as all the busses and aux stuff together can be resized too.
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 04:02 PM   #7
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Ok

After some argument heres what we have come up with

First of all, lets NOT have any confusion, we are speaking of the busses, NOT the aux sends. Aux sends and buss assignments should be completely separate. Of course an aux send can send to a buss but thats not whats being discussed here.

Assignment is a channel output in Series to a specific place. ALL level and signal from a channel will be carried to its assignment

Send: THe auxes we have, parallel sends, dont hurt these please they are the best ever!

1. Busses are busses. These need to be sent to the bottom of the vertical mixer and stay there. They will no longer display audio waveforms after them

2. Folder tracks are folder tracks, placeholders. The collapse scheme they have now is awesome! No audio functions at all, just some edit grouping features to be determined

3. Tracks will now have an "assignment button" to choose either a buss, hardware out, or master fader. The assignment busses are not mutually exclusive, and a channel can be assigned to more than one buss/master/hardware out

4. Vertical mixer will have the option to show/hide busses, show/hide folder tracks and show/hide master

5. For the horizontal mixer, like types will also be grouped together. All the busses in one area, the master in another, the tracks in another. In order to avoid HORRENDOUS arguments, the actual positioning of these three things will be user defineable.

6: Horizontal mixer will have show/hide for master, tracks and busses

Please imagine this scheme and ponder for a bit, I think it adresses all the different styles that people work with, is MUCH more intuitive, and shouldnt get too complicated.
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 04:18 PM   #8
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

Well, we only argued over teminology.

I agree with pipelineaudio's last post. All very sensible!

Assignments - They should be seperate from Aux. You can assign to any busses, or all of them, or any combination!

Aux Sends - I feel that you should "create" an aux send. It is litter on the screen the way it is now. When you click on the "Aux" buttons or however the GUI is going to do it, you should have the choice to create a new Aux Send (which ALL tracks can now access simply by selecting it that aux in the tracks aux send selection thingy magiggy) or assign to an Aux Send that is already created.

By "creating" and aux send, you create an "Aux Return" that would be situated in an area that is by the "busses". The "Aux Return" can be assigned to anywhere, and can even have it's own Aux Send! In that Aux Return, you of course have voluem, panning, and INSERT.

I would still like to see busses like I talked about above. The buss would have independent volume output, each that could be panned seperate! The buss has an "insert" too. This would make side chaining a reality in the software mixer without having to use a plugin! (I of course would rather see it done another way, but plugins seem to not OFFER any other way.
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 04:20 PM   #9
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonusman
What if the Tracks, Busses, and Auxs were all independent in the mix view and could be arranged? THAT would be slick!
I agree. Many times in Vegas, I wish I had the ability to make seperate Mixer views, where I could put Output Buses, and FX buses in different mixer views and then have them tabbed like in Vegas. So Optimially, I would have one mixer view with all my output buses. I have 20 Outs, so that's 10 stereo buses each assigned to different outputs. Then if I need a Virtual Bus, I would like to put that in a seperate mixer view, then I have FX/Aux buses, that I would like to put in yet another mixer view. So it's a nice organizational feature so that things can be seperated and then benefits so there is no need for scrolling to see a bus meter. Just one click of a tab and you see all your FX buses, one click of a tab and you see your buses feeding your Sound card outs, and yet another click of a tab if you just want to see virtual buses, that then get routed to an output assigned bus.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 04:24 PM   #10
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
Default

I agree with Pipes last post. He pretty much described the Vegas/Acid method and makes perfect sense to me. Plus, if you're a Cubendo, and Sonar user you should be happy that you have the option to have track faders in a vertical view with everything else.

The only thing I would include as I mentioned in my previous post. User defineable multiple mixer sections that can be tab viewed, for organizational purposes and to keep you from having to scroll to get to a particular fader. I would like to see at least 3 dockable tabbed mixer views.

Mixer 1= Track Faders
Mixer 2= Buses
Mixer 3= Aux Buses

Last edited by Rednroll; 01-29-2006 at 04:30 PM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 04:40 PM   #11
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
Default

Justin, let me summarize what everybody seems to be saying and what I've been looking for in a DAW for years.

If you take the Vegas/Acid GUI and put all the functionality of Nuendo/Cubase into it. Then you have the best DAW on the planet. The closest thing I have seen to that right now is Sonar, but then that seems to be headed more and more towards the Steiny GUI when I look at it.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 04:49 PM   #12
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll
Justin, let me summarize what everybody seems to be saying and what I've been looking for in a DAW for years.

If you take the Vegas/Acid GUI and put all the functionality of Nuendo/Cubase into it. Then you have the best DAW on the planet. The closest thing I have seen to that right now is Sonar, but then that seems to be headed more and more towards the Steiny GUI when I look at it.
That is a close assessment.

Actually, Sonar is nearly perfect. No scroll wheel zoom, and that is a biggie! Also, the track grouping stuff is a little hokky, but that is a preference thing. It actually works better than Vegas does!

I don't think Sonar is much like Steinberg! They haven't confused you on the basic stuff quite that bad yet!
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 05:02 PM   #13
Ben Zero
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 706
Default

I also agree with pretty much everything said here.

The one thing I am into <is> keeping the fader controls on what are currently the busses - the folder track's 'master' track. I think this is pretty cool as it's like a form of grouping or bussing but without necessarily the routing that usually goes with that. Basically, I've always wanted something like fader ganging or grouping in Vegas - very usual for big mixes - but without necessarily sending those tracks to a bus.

So I don't see why we can't keep the current 'folder track' functionality and also add a more normal bus function.

Ben
Ben Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 05:19 PM   #14
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

[QUOTE=sonusman]
By "creating" and aux send, you create an "Aux Return" that would be situated in an area that is by the "busses". The "Aux Return" can be assigned to anywhere, and can even have it's own Aux Send! In that Aux Return, you of course have voluem, panning, and INSERT.

QUOTE]

I wouldnt go that far...yet

With the current aux scheme, wherever you send to IS the aux return.

Right now that can be a track or a buss, or even a hardware out, PLEASE DO NOT BREAK THIS!!! I have been waiting for this for years

Perhaps to make sonusman's aux idea a little more palatable, when you put up a send for the first time it becomes aux 1?

SO maybe, if you take track five and open the aux sends and tell it to SEND to track 9, all of a sudden track 9 becomes aux 1 ?

Then when you go to the other tracks and right click the volume fader, they will all show Aux 1 (Track 9) ?

Maybe, gotta do some more pontification
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 05:23 PM   #15
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

There is some SERIOUS confusion caused by the master fader I am afraid

The Master Fader Output is determined by somethingwhich looks suspiciously like the track aux send chooser

If we go with the Buss and Assignment options mentioned in the thread, I believe this should be changed to a assignment chooser

If we look at this picture, http://www.cockos.com/forum/attachme...3&d=1138344118

I see no reason why the "output selector" on the bottom couldnt be the assignment system
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 05:39 PM   #16
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

[QUOTE=pipelineaudio]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonusman
By "creating" and aux send, you create an "Aux Return" that would be situated in an area that is by the "busses". The "Aux Return" can be assigned to anywhere, and can even have it's own Aux Send! In that Aux Return, you of course have voluem, panning, and INSERT.

QUOTE]

I wouldnt go that far...yet

With the current aux scheme, wherever you send to IS the aux return.

Right now that can be a track or a buss, or even a hardware out, PLEASE DO NOT BREAK THIS!!! I have been waiting for this for years

Perhaps to make sonusman's aux idea a little more palatable, when you put up a send for the first time it becomes aux 1?

SO maybe, if you take track five and open the aux sends and tell it to SEND to track 9, all of a sudden track 9 becomes aux 1 ?

Then when you go to the other tracks and right click the volume fader, they will all show Aux 1 (Track 9) ?

Maybe, gotta do some more pontification
I don't get WHY you want to be able to "aux" to a preexisting track.

???
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 05:44 PM   #17
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

you surely can understand why I might want to aux to a pre-existing buss I hope
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 05:49 PM   #18
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio
you surely can understand why I might want to aux to a pre-existing buss I hope
DUH!

But right now, you can "aux send" track 1 to track 2. That is whacked!

And you are the one saying "let's keep Aux's and Busses seperated", yet, you are totally mixing up their uses!
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 05:52 PM   #19
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonusman
DUH!

But right now, you can "aux send" track 1 to track 2. That is whacked!

And you are the one saying "let's keep Aux's and Busses seperated", yet, you are totally mixing up their uses!
One is a send and one is an assignment

A send can be any level or pan, totally independant of the channel's output assignment

An assignment is jus tthat, a assignment to send the track's level's and pans to a specific location
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 06:34 PM   #20
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

Listen, I don't see ANY USEFUL FUNCTION for being able to do an "Auxlliary Send" of track 1 to track 2! It is a silly function that serves NO purpose. Having this available in the "I/O" section is silly. This is sort of a "buss" assignment type of thing. I/O and Aux Sends should not be mixed together, nor should they serve as the same kind of thing. It is just too confusing, and is frankly just taking up screen space when you click on the "Auxillary Send" in the menu!

This scheme also requires that you create a new "track" to have a way to HAVE a Aux Send. That is silly also. Just give us the ability to create an Aux Send!!! In creating it, you automatically have a "Aux Return" in the mixer that has similar functions as a "track" does (volume, pan, insert, automation).
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 06:36 PM   #21
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonusman
Listen, I don't see ANY USEFUL FUNCTION for being able to do an "Auxlliary Send" of track 1 to track 2! It is a silly function that serves NO purpose. Having this available in the "I/O" section is silly. This is sort of a "buss" assignment type of thing. I/O and Aux Sends should not be mixed together, nor should they serve as the same kind of thing. It is just too confusing, and is frankly just taking up screen space when you click on the "Auxillary Send" in the menu!

This scheme also requires that you create a new "track" to have a way to HAVE a Aux Send. That is silly also. Just give us the ability to create an Aux Send!!! In creating it, you automatically have a "Aux Return" in the mixer that has similar functions as a "track" does (volume, pan, insert, automation).
SHow/Hide and leave it alone, it will be revealed in due time
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 07:07 PM   #22
sonusman
Human being with feelings
 
sonusman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: the act or process of locating
Posts: 173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio
SHow/Hide and leave it alone, it will be revealed in due time
What is going to be revealed?

IF you could come up with something useful for this option, that would be one thing.
__________________
My wang is porn stah big in metric numbers!
sonusman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 08:12 PM   #23
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Zero
So I don't see why we can't keep the current 'folder track' functionality and also add a more normal bus function.
Yep, you're on the same page as me. That's why I suggest to keep the Volume fader on the Folder Track. I Think it could be made to be a little more useful as far as user feedback, where if you move the folder track fader then the corresponding faders within the seperate tracks under the folder track move with it, like a true fader grouping feature. But I would imagine something like the PAN control should be removed and also the folder track insert, since it's really not a true bus anymore. Along with removing the I/O and automation function. Those things in my mind belong on the bus.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2006, 08:23 PM   #24
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll
Yep, you're on the same page as me. That's why I suggest to keep the Volume fader on the Folder Track. I Think it could be made to be a little more useful as far as user feedback, where if you move the folder track fader then the corresponding faders within the seperate tracks under the folder track move with it, like a true fader grouping feature. But I would imagine something like the PAN control should be removed and also the folder track insert, since it's really not a true bus anymore. Along with removing the I/O and automation function. Those things in my mind belong on the bus.
That would give us an easy way to "trim" the busses even under full automation was going on!
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.