Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Feature Requests

View Poll Results: Pinnable FX - Yes? Maybe? No?
Yes 17 70.83%
Maybe 1 4.17%
No 6 25.00%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-23-2021, 10:07 AM   #1
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default POLL: Pinned FX Slots. Yes or No?

!! NOTE !!
This is a merging of two completely different threads. What I'm talking about is NOT "fixed slots." What I'm talking about is being able to pin FX in specific spots. Scroll down past all the stuff about fixed slots. It's irrelevant.
Relevancy begins at post #16: https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=16

***************************
Fixed FX slots. As in, put a safety limiter at the very end of your FX chain and it stays there. Put any FX anywhere, and it stays there, maintaining spaces between other plugins. As per this thread that's been going for 4+ years. (EDIT: Previously forgot to include the link. derp.)
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=192783

EDIT: To clarify, I mean that only effects that you "pin" into a specific slot stay there. All other effects slots remain dynamic, as they are right now. Only pinned slots keep their effect.

I made this poll to hopefully gain more traction with this request. Get the devs to notice it and take it more seriously.
So. Yes or no. Would you use it? Please discuss in the main Fixed FX Slots thread to keep things nice and concise. (EDIT: I shouldn't ask "Would you use it." It should be "Would you support that addition" or something. Very poor wording on my part.)

Last edited by artao; 07-11-2022 at 02:19 PM. Reason: Spelling corrections, Titling Error Fix
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2021, 10:15 AM   #2
beingmf
Human being with feelings
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jazz City
Posts: 5,065
Default

I'd absolutely use it. Tape emus, console emus, transformers etc. all make most sense when they're at a certain spot in the chain. This would make our lives definitely easier (even though not earth-shattering lol).
__________________
Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x
"If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
beingmf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2021, 03:05 PM   #3
n997
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 503
Default

I'll give a +1 if you write the "Yes" as:

"Yes, as an option, while fully retaining the current dynamic FX chain for those who prefer it"

n997 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2021, 06:58 PM   #4
rncwalker
Human being with feelings
 
rncwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Fl.
Posts: 793
Default

No!

It is already possible to setup your own slot system.

Just make a custom template with the effects you want and use the blank VST where needed.




Robert.

Last edited by rncwalker; 09-23-2021 at 07:03 PM.
rncwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 12:03 AM   #5
Ann-82
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Berlin
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rncwalker View Post
No!

It is already possible to setup your own slot system.

Just make a custom template with the effects you want and use the blank VST where needed.




Robert.
Hello rncwalker,

this is a nice workaround, but quite unflexible when you are in need to move an FX into a different slot number, or interchange the plugins position.

A native solution could be definetly a cleaner option.
Ann-82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 01:00 AM   #6
Phazma
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rncwalker View Post
Just make a custom template with the effects you want and use the blank VST where needed.
The problem with this is, that if you want to insert an FX between two other FX, everything below will move down and you lose the position of an FX that should stay at a certain slot.

This forces you to replace a dummy FX with your wanted FX first and then move it up or down to the desired position -> making adding an effect a 2 step process instead of a one step process.

This is a drawback that I can quickly think of from top of my head but I am sure I could come up with others. Dynamic repositioning of FX just isn't ass flexible as fixed slot FX.

I actually don't see any drawback of having fixed FX slots. Some people say, this is not compatible with infinite FX slots...why? Just give an option to have x fixed FX slots, for example x=10. And if you use the 10th FX slot you get 3 more. Then, if you fill the 13th slot you get again 3 more slots (now having 16.. and this goes on to infinity).

The only advantage I can see of dynamic FX slots is that you always have all FX tightly organized one after another. But apart from the fact that someone might leave gaps for a reason and everyone who never wants gaps can just always click onto the slot directly below the last FX to add a new effect... there would an easy solution as action:
- "Remove empty FX slots between FX on selected tracks" (and maybe a version 'on all tracks').
You just run that action and your mixer is automatically tidied up.

So again.. where is the drawback of fixed slots?
Phazma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 08:56 AM   #7
n997
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phazma View Post
So again.. where is the drawback of fixed slots?
Here's why I prefer a dynamic FX chain:

I mostly do composition, synthesis and sound design, and I almost always use only the "FX list view" in FX window (instead of the Mixer window).

On any given track, there is no guarantee that any specific FX will be needed. Even when I use compressors for "sidechaining to 4/4 click", the plugin doing it is not always the last one in the chain, nor is it needed on every track. So I usually have no need for benefits of slot-based chain.

I rely on FX being dynamically listed top-to-down to be clearly aware of how many effects the track has. Sometimes it is 2, sometimes (for modular synthesis and sound design inside one track) 10 or more. Thus, the lack of possibility of empty rows in the list is a benefit to my user experience - I can always be sure of seeing at a glance the full FX list, nothing hidden after a few blank rows etc.

I like that when adding new effects in the middle of the chain (possible via drag & drop, though I'd wish for "add after/before selected" menu items and shortcuts), or moving them up/down, the list is automatically updated - and I don't have to move other effects up or down to make space, like in some other DAWs.

In other words, the fact that the dynamic chain is "automatically tidy" saves me time and trouble - no need to run extra actions to remove possible empty slots after deciding, for example, that some FX in the middle of a chain is unnecessary.




To sum it up: the way current dynamic FX chain works suits my current needs. A slot-based chain would make things less intuitive (and sometimes slower, requiring more work) in my use cases.


That is why I'd only vote for an optional slot-based chain.
n997 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 09:16 AM   #8
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

It baffles me that anyone would vote no on this. <sigh>
I don't think people get it.
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 10:08 AM   #9
n997
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
It baffles me that anyone would vote no on this. <sigh>
I don't think people get it.
Well, you are - at the time of this post - asking "Yes or no. Would you use it?"
Thus, anyone who is fairly sure that they personally would not use it (based on experiences with other DAWs, perhaps) would vote "No".

Personally, most of the time I would not use slot-based FX chain - but I'd try it, and might end up using it in some edge cases, perhaps. So I can't give an absolute yes or no vote to the question "would you use it"


Maybe ask it as "An option for fixed FX slots - yes or no"?
Harder to answer in strict "no" to that one, since that'd mean denying other people their wishes...
n997 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 10:20 AM   #10
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

Good point. Poorly worded poll.
Perhaps I should delete this whole thing and start a new one. LOL

People talk about "infinite fx slots" and I'm like, "Huh? Why would anyone need that?"
They wouldn't NO ONE would need more than 100 FX slots. More than 50. HELL!! More than 20. If you're putting more than 20 FX on a single track you're doing something wrong.

And clarify what I mean by "fixed slots."
NOT that every effect stays where you put it. No no no. Slots remain dynamic unless you specifically pin and effect in a spot. Or set it to "Always be 1st/last/slot #n" as you will. Any other effects behave as fx slots currently do.
Personally, I just want to pin specific effects in specific places.
Like a meter pinned to both the 1st slot and the last slot, and a safety limiter pinned immediately before the VU meter. Perhaps even another VU meter before the limiter to monitor how hard you're driving the input. IF the limiter doesn't already have input level monitoring.

EDIT: AND I see I forgot to post the link to the thread about it. <sigh>
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 10:37 AM   #11
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
It baffles me that anyone would vote no on this. <sigh>
I don't think people get it.
And I really cannot understand this obsession with fixed FX slots. There is (for me) no problem with the current way it works that this would solve. In fact, I voted no, because I think it would introduce other issues that we currently do not have. What if I decide that I want the EQ before the compressor. Now, I just drag it above the compressor, and it is done. How would this work if FX slots were fixed? I have no idea, I guess it depends on how "fixed" the slots actually were, and I guess that different people have different opinions about this.

So, no I would not use it.
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 10:55 AM   #12
DarkStar
Human being with feelings
 
DarkStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 19,677
Default

Fixed slots - only as an option

Some initial thoughts:
(a) what happens if I show FX param knobs below each FX? Does each track get the same param knobs?
(b) what happens if I drag an FX up/down in the list?
(c) If I put an EQ from XXX on row 3 could I put a different EQ on that row for another track?
(d) in my usual Arranger and Mixer view, I have room for 7 MCP FX slots, above that and I need to scroll the list - will the lists in all the other track scroll too?
(e) if I have an FX in the first and tenth slots on a track, I end up scrolling the list a lot.

But what I would like is a way to spot a particular FX more easily, Tinted background assigned by the user to each FX, when needed?
__________________
DarkStar ... interesting, if true. . . . Inspired by ...
DarkStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 11:14 AM   #13
n997
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
People talk about "infinite fx slots" and I'm like, "Huh? Why would anyone need that?"
They wouldn't NO ONE would need more than 100 FX slots. More than 50. HELL!! More than 20. If you're putting more than 20 FX on a single track you're doing something wrong.
Depends on what one is doing, in general.

Building a complex modular synthesis/sound design patch inside one track could well use more than 20 FX, with various signals going to different track channels - but conceptually, still result in "one sound". Another example would be a drum sampler with many ReaSamplOmatic5000 instances with round-robin-like functions and velocity layers. That can easily go over 20 instances per one drum.


Point being, the userbase of REAPER is diverse. Depending on user, it may be a modular synthesis & sequencing environment, a recording solution for acoustic instruments, a game audio prototyping environment, a setup for foley sound, and so on.

I would not be surprised to see a case where someone utilizes 100+ ReaSamplOmatics with different rain droplet samples, triggered by MIDI generated with a script, to synthesize different intensities of rain - for example

Incidentally, I recently found out that on a current mid-range PC, a REAPER track can contain from several hundred up to several thousand (!) FX, but after a thousand or so, UI may get laggy.
n997 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 11:51 AM   #14
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

*** DELETED BY AUTHOR CUZ DUMB AND UNNEEDED ***

Apologies. Be well.
I've started a new thread/poll that clarifies what I'm talking about: PINNABLE fx, not totally fixed FX slots. I understand the confusion.

https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=257847

Last edited by artao; 09-24-2021 at 01:12 PM. Reason: post was moot and unneeded
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 11:57 AM   #15
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

hmm. I don't think the last few people who posted read my edits or my last post prior to theirs.

So I'll clarify:
Fixed FX slots is the wrong choice of words. I can see people having a problem with that. I wouldn't like it either.

I have started a new poll/thread with the CORRECT concept: PINNED fx. NOT fixed slots. God no!! lol

EDIT: Derp!! The link to it. -> https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=257847

I'll contact a mod to close this one. derp

Last edited by artao; 09-24-2021 at 12:42 PM.
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 12:38 PM   #16
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default PINNABLE FX: Yes? Maybe? No?

Okay. I have come to realize that my other poll was very poorly worded and the desired feature very poorly described. My apologies, and embarrassment. derp

So I'll clarify:
Fixed FX slots is the wrong choice of words. I can see people having a problem with everything staying exactly where you put it and nothing moves unless you manually move it. I wouldn't like it either.

What I mean is PINNED FX. The FX slot system would remain exactly as-is, but with the addition of being able to pin FX in certain relative positions in the FX chain, leaving a series of empty slots if so desired.
How awesome would that be, eh? I think (and hope) more people would support that sort of feature. An option to use, and if you don't want to use it you'll never even notice it exists. But I think people would come to love it.

When inserting new plugins, those pinned FX would appropriately move up/down in the list as needed to maintain the relative position in the chain. If there are empty slots available then the pinned FX wouldn't move. They'd only move if a person inserted more effects where there's no empty slots remaining so as to maintain the relative position in the FX chain sequence. EDIT EDIT: Perhaps be able to set pinned effects with N number of blank FX slots around them to maintain that empty-slot spacing, for easier visual cueing of position in the FX chain.
Pinning options could be: Beginning, End, and specified slot #. FX could be linked together to be pinned in sequence as well. (For instance EQ followed by compressor always at the end of the chain. EDIT: But if you move one the other moves with it. Which I guess is kind of a feature unto its own.). Accessed via right-click menu, and perhaps hot-keyed actions (on mouse hover over FX?)
Yes, you can drag-n-drop from the FX browser into the FX list to the spot you want so as to maintain order. But it's easy to drag to the wrong spot then have to readjust order. And with adding FX via right-click, they always get inserted at the end. With pinned FX you can just drag from the FX browser vaguely into the FX list and the pinned FX will remain in their relative position. Ditto with adding effects via right-click directly in the FX chain list. As it is now FX default to being at the end of the chain.

My personal use case is: Have a VU meter and/or a gain staging plugin (or pre-amp/compressor/channel strip) always at the top of the FX chain. Then have another VU always at the end of the chain, with a safety limiter immediately before it. Then save this as the default track template so every track I create comes pre-set with input and output level monitoring plus a safety limiter and gain staging, and those remain in their assigned positions relative to other inserted plugins. I hope that makes sense.
EDIT EDIT: So frankly, even just being able to set effects to "always first/last in the chain" would suit my needs. Not as flexible tho. Still, very useful and even potentially time saving.

Pinned FX, not fixed slots. TOTALLY different beasts.

Apologies for the confusion. "Fixed FX slots" conveys the wrong concept. I have a feeling a LOT more people would support the "pinning FX" idea over the "fixed FX slots" idea. I honestly hadn't considered "fixed FX slots" with the meaning that people are thinking of it as. I can see why people dislike that idea. I do too LOL

hmmm ... Perhaps this sort of thing could already be accomplished using scripting. Not by ME, mind you. Someone who can actually program.
Over all my attempts at programming over the decades I have learned that I am decidedly not a programmer. LOL ...... Except in Inform 7 and a tiny bit of basic Python(maybe).

Last edited by artao; 09-24-2021 at 02:36 PM. Reason: Freakin typos dammit! -- Further clarification of post-realized inclarity -- Sudden additional implementation idea
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 02:16 PM   #17
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default Additions and Implementation Thoughts

Just thought of this. Perhaps adding effects could be "position aware" such that new FX are "snapped" to the nearest pinned effect when either right-clicking or drag-n-dropping. That would be most useful in a usage case where there's pinned first and last FX along with one or more pinned between them, with N number of empty slots between. You drag or right-click into an empty spot "near" the desired insertion point and it auto-snaps to the nearest pinned effect. Even with just first and/or last pinned effects that would let you quickly choose which end of the chain you want to insert the effect to.
As an option to enable-disable. That'd be cool eh?
Also, another pinning option could be something like "relative position" which I'll attempt to diagram here:

slot 1 - gain stage w/calibrated input VU monitor - Pinned First
slot 2 - EQ
slot 3 - empty
slot 4 - empty
slot 5 - Distortion - Pinned Relative - Linked with Compression
slot 6 - Compression - Pinned Relative - Linked with Distortion
slot 7 - empty
slot 8 - Limiter - Pinned Last - Linked with Out VU Monitor
slot 9 - calibrated VU meter output monitor - Pinned Last - Linked with Limiter

So say you fill slots 3 and 4, then want to put more in there. just drag it in there and everything from slot 5 and below moves down, maintaining empty slots. And it would snap to either EQ or Distortion depending where the right-click or drag-n-drop happens.
With the distortion and compression, if you move the one you move the other maintaining the same order. Also displacing other slots as needed and appropriate. If you wanted to add something between them it would be added in sequence to that linked group. And of course multiple groups; as shown with the linked limiter<->VU meter.
Also note that the EQ in slot 2 is neither pinned nor linked, so it just moves as usual.

Last edited by artao; 09-24-2021 at 02:43 PM. Reason: Forgot some words in several places d'oh
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 02:38 PM   #18
rncwalker
Human being with feelings
 
rncwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Fl.
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
It baffles me that anyone would vote no on this. <sigh>
I don't think people get it.
Because it will not work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phazma View Post
The problem with this is, that if you want to insert an FX between two other FX, everything below will move down and you lose the position of an FX that should stay at a certain slot.

This forces you to replace a dummy FX with your wanted FX first and then move it up or down to the desired position -> making adding an effect a 2 step process instead of a one step process.

This is a drawback that I can quickly think of from top of my head but I am sure I could come up with others. Dynamic repositioning of FX just isn't ass flexible as fixed slot FX.
If you find that you want to “insert an FX between two other FX”, you can’t because they are fixed, My understanding is that from many other threads on this same topic “Fixed Slots” user’s seem to want fixed slots so that whatever FX they place there never moves…..So you cannot place a FX between two existing ones, if you do then all other FX after that changes position. So why even have fixed slots?
I’ve also heard users say that they want to look at a Mixer and have everything line up across each track(MCP)


Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
So I'll clarify:
Fixed FX slots is the wrong choice of words. I can see people having a problem with that. I wouldn't like it either.
I have started a new poll/thread with the CORRECT concept: PINNED fx. NOT fixed slots. God no!! lol
That still will be a problem!

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post

And clarify what I mean by "fixed slots."
NOT that every effect stays where you put it. No no no. Slots remain dynamic unless you specifically pin and effect in a spot. Or set it to "Always be 1st/last/slot #n" as you will. Any other effects behave as fx slots currently do.
Personally, I just want to pin specific effects in specific places.
Like a meter pinned to both the 1st slot and the last slot, and a safety limiter pinned immediately before the VU meter. Perhaps even another VU meter before the limiter to monitor how hard you're driving the input. IF the limiter doesn't already have input level monitoring.
Again Setting up your own template can give you what you want, remember you will find that even with pinned slots, you will eventually find yourself changing your layout to something different because the “Project at hand requires it”
I have seen no convincing evidence that it would work better that what Reaper can currently do.
If I and others cannot see why we need it, neither will the Developers.


Robert
rncwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 02:43 PM   #19
rncwalker
Human being with feelings
 
rncwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Fl.
Posts: 793
Default

You can do all of what you say with templates! NOW




Robert
rncwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 02:51 PM   #20
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rncwalker View Post
You can do all of what you say with templates! NOW




Robert
Oh really?
How do I set it up so that a calibrated VU monitor and/or gain staging/pre-amp plugin are always in the 1st slot (or two, always in that sequence), followed by 5 empty slots, then with a safety brickwall limiter followed by a calibrated output VU monitor ALWAYS as the last two effects?
You can't.
I have track templates such as that. As-is they're all bunched together at the top. If I right-click-add another effect from my list of favorite effects, it goes to the end. So I then have to drag it to the correct position.
With pinned effects that wouldn't happen. They would stay in their appropriately relative spot no matter where or how you insert new effects.
And then, again, when you add new effects they currently default to being at the end of the chain. Then you have to drag it where you actually want it. Yes, FX browser drag-n-drop exists. But, as I said, it's easy to put it in the wrong spot, then you have to manually reorder.

And, again, for those who wouldn't use this, it would have no effect on your usage at all. You wouldn't even notice it exists. Just an option to use or not.
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 02:59 PM   #21
rncwalker
Human being with feelings
 
rncwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Fl.
Posts: 793
Default

Look here



Look at the numbers as being your Slot#

Selecting effects is off screen, trying to keep the GIF small.

Again, you can make templates for the following, with each one being different

Bus Mix
Sub Master
Effects Track.

Drums Folder

etc.....

Robert
rncwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 03:11 PM   #22
Phazma
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,872
Default

Oh seems there are different ways in which one could interpret fixed slots..

I thought it was how for example Logic or Cubase handle FX. You can decide on which slot you load them and they stay there (no dynamic reorganizing), but you can still move them around as you desire.



I would find this pretty helpful.

However I would not like having FX forced to a certain slot and being unable to move them.
Phazma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 03:20 PM   #23
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

Terrible and clumsy workaround. That restricts you to always having to choose "Replace Effect" from the right click menu. Not to mention it it tedious to set up.

Again, it would have zero affect on anyone who didn't want to use it. Totally invisible.
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 06:16 PM   #24
rncwalker
Human being with feelings
 
rncwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Fl.
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
Terrible and clumsy workaround. That restricts you to always having to choose "Replace Effect" from the right click menu. Not to mention it it tedious to set up.

Again, it would have zero affect on anyone who didn't want to use it. Totally invisible.
Add FX or Replace FX just as easy, "tedious to set up" No
It took me just under 2min to set up and save as a default template.

Now every time I start a new project or add a track, its there for me to use.

Try and setting up a template with the blank VST and place the ones that you will always use and use it to get a better understanding of how it works and from that.

Here is another thread explaining how some want it to look in the MCP

https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=34

Remember that the FX is tied to the Parameters portion of the exmixer

Artao, I want you to understand that its nothing against you.

I'm all for making the FX/Parameters/Sends better (i.e.:exmixer)!
I just do not think that Slots and/or pins is the answer.

I think we need to better understanding of what can be done now,with what we have. That will better help us in explaining what short comings it currently has.

From what I understand, it takes some good reasoning to get the Developer to even consider this. Someone just saying "Well Pro Tools has it", "Reaper will be better than all other DAW's" or "you will get a lot more users"
Doing that will not even raise an eyebrow, from them. (I know you have not said this)

Robert
rncwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2021, 06:22 PM   #25
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

Tedious? Yes.
You say it took you 2 min. to set up. Okay. Fine.
Adding a few effects and pinning them in place would take like 15 seconds.
Using dummy effects is an inefficient and clumsy workaround for something Reaper can't inherently do. I stand by that.
Being able to simply tell Reaper, "This plugin(s) are always to be the first/last in the chain." would be super useful and a workflow boon.
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 12:15 AM   #26
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

A good choice to have.

I have gotten used to Reapers elastic fx and send system, but it‘s true that I‘d sometimes love to have plugins and sends be or remain in a certain position.

Both systems have their merits.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 07:52 AM   #27
rncwalker
Human being with feelings
 
rncwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Fl.
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
Tedious? Yes.
You say it took you 2 min. to set up. Okay. Fine.
Adding a few effects and pinning them in place would take like 15 seconds.
Using dummy effects is an inefficient and clumsy workaround for something Reaper can't inherently do. I stand by that.
Being able to simply tell Reaper, "This plugin(s) are always to be the first/last in the chain." would be super useful and a workflow boon.
Tedious, NO!

It's 2min setting it up and saving as a template. After that 0 time needed each time you create a new track, as you already setup up of your effects.
You can also save it as an effects chain and insert in into your track(s) as needed.

What reaper does need, is the ability to insert Fx's between effects.
If you could do that you would not need slots.

Some would say, but I still need them to line up on the MCP, instead of slots maybe allow users to space them out to have gaps between each FX.


Robert
rncwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 08:48 AM   #28
mtk
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 85
Default

Definitely yes!

Even better with expandable FX containers which could give the ability to group certain types of FXs or "knobs", ex:
* INITIAL PROCESSING FX (ex. eq, compressor)
* SPACE (ex. delay, reverb)
* COLOR (ex. vintage compressor or eq)
* ...
* OUTGOING SIGNAL PROCESSING (ex. ex, compressor, limiter)

- -
* SENDS
* FX PARAMETERS

This would make life so much easier ..If havea project with 100+ tracks and 10 different sends channels you could have ex. send 1 on the same horizontal line/level in the mixer for each channel ... or EQ to cut low-end on the same slot at the end of the chain on each channel...
mtk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 09:11 AM   #29
Jae.Thomas
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artao View Post
It baffles me that anyone would vote no on this. <sigh>
I don't think people get it.
why are you asking then? Just make your request and see if the devs respond? It sounds like you are acting in bad faith here...

just sounds like you want confirmation... but go off
Jae.Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 11:28 AM   #30
artao
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rncwalker View Post
Tedious, NO!

It's 2min setting it up and saving as a template. After that 0 time needed each time you create a new track, as you already setup up of your effects.
You can also save it as an effects chain and insert in into your track(s) as needed.

What reaper does need, is the ability to insert Fx's between effects.
If you could do that you would not need slots.

Some would say, but I still need them to line up on the MCP, instead of slots maybe allow users to space them out to have gaps between each FX.


Robert
Tedious yes.
In that 2 minutes it takes to set up a single track, you could set up 8 tracks with pinning.
Also, sitting there and tediously labeling slots.
artao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 12:46 PM   #31
rncwalker
Human being with feelings
 
rncwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Fl.
Posts: 793
Default

2min to set us my entire fx chain!
I gather you have not even tried it yet!

What about someone with 110+ tracks, doing it the way you seem to be doing it, now that would be Tedious!

Do the way I suggested, as fast as it takes to have reaper create 100+ tracks, Done!

I've come to realize that what the Dev's need to allow is, for us to be able add an FX between two FX's and not have to add an FX and then move it where you want.

I've done some reading on many of the threads about Fixed Slots, and that is the #1 complaint about the current system (Cannot add Effect between two) and 2nd is that users would like to see everything line up (MCP).

The whole idea about Slots/Pinning is to prevent your layout from changing for example:

Slots FX
1 Blank
2 Compressor
3 ReaEQ
4 Delay

Now if you want to add an FX between 2 & 3, you can't because of what is in a Slot or Pinned, if want the ability to change it, then why need slots?

Post from the year 2012, users were asking for replacing FX. Which sometime later was added. So, allow us to be able to add an FX just before one?

I personally have my 'regular tracks', FX in this order:

1 YamahaXG (I set to off line when I use 2)
2 Blank (For future Instrument replacement to the YamahaXG)
3 Limiter
4 Compressor
5 EQ

and use Sends to an Effects track for anything else.

We all have different ways to doing things


Robert
rncwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 03:36 PM   #32
nofish
Human being with feelings
 
nofish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 12,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rncwalker View Post
I've come to realize that what the Dev's need to allow is, for us to be able add an FX between two FX's and not have to add an FX and then move it where you want.
Drag and drop from FX browser this works.
gif
nofish 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 04:23 PM.


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