I wish Props would make a new Mixer
I mean a mixer for to use in a rack like 14:2. The 14:2 is a bit challenging for my eyes, so when I sometimes use it, the labels are very hard to read. So if you props would make a new mixer, remember to make all the mixer channels big enough and let every channel to have audio outs too, so when the sends are summed together you could route every channel out to a new audio in of any device. So the space for bigger channels could be taken from of by reducing the amount of channels. 8 big channels would already do. If you run out of the channels, you can always add another one, just like you can with the 14:2 too...
Ya know...when Rack Extensions were first announced 6 years ago, one of the first things I was sure somebody would create would be a different mixer for the rack. Something comparable to the 14:2, but better. Maybe emulations of popular mixers. Maybe single mix channels emulations as well. I guess there isn't much desire for that? Or maybe some developers just need to be given the idea?
I was thinking a possible RE-mixer, but I wasn't 100% sure it can be done, so all the things would work with the core code, but now when I think it, nothing comes into my mind that why not.joeyluck wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018Ya know...when Rack Extensions were first announced 6 years ago, one of the first things I was sure somebody would create would be a different mixer for the rack. Something comparable to the 14:2, but better. Maybe emulations of popular mixers. Maybe single mix channels emulations as well. I guess there isn't much desire for that? Or maybe some developers just need to be given the idea?
Edit: actually one thing, if this mixer would cost money or even would require to have it, then sound-designers would need to stick with 14:2 so their combinators would not say a "missing device".
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: 05 Feb 2015
Personally I’d love for Props to add another main mixer allowing users to switch between the SSL style one and others such as a Neve style one to give us more options when it comes to mixing. Could also give Mixbus a run for its money
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Carly(Poohbear)
- Competition Winner
- Posts: 2871
- Joined: 25 Jan 2015
- Location: UK
What's wrong with using multiple mix channels and bus them together?
I just wished we could save mix channel(s) and settings along with a normal combinator patch for starters.
I just wished we could save mix channel(s) and settings along with a normal combinator patch for starters.
Well, you can't use SSL in combis or in a rack.Carly(Poohbear) wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018What's wrong with using multiple mix channels and bus them together?
I just wished we could save mix channel(s) and settings along with a normal combinator patch for starters.
If nothing is used in SSL like all the EQ's and compressors, than shouldn't they both sound identical?stephensmattlee wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018Personally I’d love for Props to add another main mixer allowing users to switch between the SSL style one and others such as a Neve style one to give us more options when it comes to mixing. Could also give Mixbus a run for its money
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not totally with the op. 8 channels are not enough in my workflow. I often layer 1 to 4 sounds and route the sebd fx to their own channels, where i sometimes have a different device for left and right, which i nix individually. This i easy end up with 6 send mix channels on top of the sound layer.
I never had the need of an output for each channel, but i can imagine it can be quite interesting here and there.
The size of the 14:4 mixer is ok, the 6:2 lacks 90% of the time enough send fx. And that is that i would add, at least 2 more and fx to the 14:4.
From UX perspective... Well... It looks ugly, but i never cared much. Its easy and quick to use.
I never had the need of an output for each channel, but i can imagine it can be quite interesting here and there.
The size of the 14:4 mixer is ok, the 6:2 lacks 90% of the time enough send fx. And that is that i would add, at least 2 more and fx to the 14:4.
From UX perspective... Well... It looks ugly, but i never cared much. Its easy and quick to use.
Reason12, Win10
So how would you solve the bigger channels issue then?Loque wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018I am not totally with the op. 8 channels are not enough in my workflow. I often layer 1 to 4 sounds and route the sebd fx to their own channels, where i sometimes have a different device for left and right, which i nix individually. This i easy end up with 6 send mix channels on top of the sound layer.
I never had the need of an output for each channel, but i can imagine it can be quite interesting here and there.
The size of the 14:4 mixer is ok, the 6:2 lacks 90% of the time enough send fx. And that is that i would add, at least 2 more and fx to the 14:4.
From UX perspective... Well... It looks ugly, but i never cared much. Its easy and quick to use.
Dunno... I don't have the mixer backside in front of my eyes atm. If I have to choose, I choose more send fx - its impossible to create feedback loops over several mixers or to be precise it is PITA.Heigen5 wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018So how would you solve the bigger channels issue then?Loque wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018I am not totally with the op. 8 channels are not enough in my workflow. I often layer 1 to 4 sounds and route the sebd fx to their own channels, where i sometimes have a different device for left and right, which i nix individually. This i easy end up with 6 send mix channels on top of the sound layer.
I never had the need of an output for each channel, but i can imagine it can be quite interesting here and there.
The size of the 14:4 mixer is ok, the 6:2 lacks 90% of the time enough send fx. And that is that i would add, at least 2 more and fx to the 14:4.
From UX perspective... Well... It looks ugly, but i never cared much. Its easy and quick to use.
If you don't need the send fx, you can just send a channel to a send fx which gives you 4 extra controllable outputs. Ok, with a slight delay.
Reason12, Win10
If the new mixer would take advance out of the space vertically, then there could be lots more space for at least 8 sends. But the mixer channel amount would be 8-10?Loque wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018Dunno... I don't have the mixer backside in front of my eyes atm. If I have to choose, I choose more send fx - its impossible to create feedback loops over several mixers or to be precise it is PITA.
If you don't need the send fx, you can just send a channel to a send fx which gives you 4 extra controllable outputs. Ok, with a slight delay.
It could be many things. It could be a series of different mixers, each focusing more on this or that. But you are only limited by the size you make it. I think the largest is 9U? And then it all depends on how long the throw is on your faders, if you use faders, etc., but you can fit many connections on the back for sure.Heigen5 wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018If the new mixer would take advance out of the space vertically, then there could be lots more space for at least 8 sends. But the mixer channel amount would be 8-10?Loque wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018
Dunno... I don't have the mixer backside in front of my eyes atm. If I have to choose, I choose more send fx - its impossible to create feedback loops over several mixers or to be precise it is PITA.
If you don't need the send fx, you can just send a channel to a send fx which gives you 4 extra controllable outputs. Ok, with a slight delay.
With Selig Gain https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... elig-gain/ you can build your own volume/pan mixer in a combinator.
I wish they focused on something else - the SSL is great as it is, better than most mixers in other DAWs
Yes, and with Console 1 as harware controller, the SSL mixer comes to live
Well, since then (the past 5-6 years), there’s this one guy here asking for this, so yea, “there isn’t much desire for that” would be my assumption.joeyluck wrote:Ya know...when Rack Extensions were first announced 6 years ago, one of the first things I was sure somebody would create would be a different mixer for the rack.…I guess there isn't much desire for that?
There are lots of ideas out there that would appeal to a very small user base, which make them low priority for developers.
FWIW, a mixer like this would be very easy to build, and you could use switchable panels to either provide access to the different parts of the mixer (since vertical space is limited), or to switch out different EQ/dynamics/Input options.
Personally, what I could use is a Reason mixer (not an RE) that fits between the Line Mixer and 14:2, an 8-10 channel simple 2 space mixer with two sends/returns, Low/High filters, polarity invert, direct outs, linking to additional mixers, full CV support, and maybe a bus compressor on the output.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
I'm sure there's lots of top-notch ideas from me, that were suggested by me ONLY, but it's not always the case that it had to be requested by thousands IMO.selig wrote: ↑07 Oct 2018Well, since then (the past 5-6 years), there’s this one guy here asking for this, so yea, “there isn’t much desire for that” would be my assumption.joeyluck wrote:Ya know...when Rack Extensions were first announced 6 years ago, one of the first things I was sure somebody would create would be a different mixer for the rack.…I guess there isn't much desire for that?
There are lots of ideas out there that would appeal to a very small user base, which make them low priority for developers.
FWIW, a mixer like this would be very easy to build, and you could use switchable panels to either provide access to the different parts of the mixer (since vertical space is limited), or to switch out different EQ/dynamics/Input options.
Personally, what I could use is a Reason mixer (not an RE) that fits between the Line Mixer and 14:2, an 8-10 channel simple 2 space mixer with two sends/returns, Low/High filters, polarity invert, direct outs, linking to additional mixers, full CV support, and maybe a bus compressor on the output.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Of course, but the suggestions that ARE made by thousands are more likely to be implemented in my experience. I even agree with your suggestion, if it’s done the way that addresses my needs. And I also agree it should be done by the Props and not as an RE so it can be freely used in Combinators.Heigen5 wrote: I'm sure there's lots of top-notch ideas from me, that were suggested by me ONLY, but it's not always the case that it had to be requested by thousands IMO.
One of the points I was making is that everyone has a DIFFERENT idea of how this “new mixer” should look and how it should function - we all have different needs, which is of course stating the obvious.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
Yeah, indeed, we all have our own needs. But feel free to recommend your needs here as well, propably Props would put the most useful ones into it then. And like I said, I'm totally happy with the SSL, but would like a new one for a Rack this time.selig wrote: ↑07 Oct 2018Of course, but the suggestions that ARE made by thousands are more likely to be implemented in my experience. I even agree with your suggestion, if it’s done the way that addresses my needs. And I also agree it should be done by the Props and not as an RE so it can be freely used in Combinators.Heigen5 wrote: I'm sure there's lots of top-notch ideas from me, that were suggested by me ONLY, but it's not always the case that it had to be requested by thousands IMO.
One of the points I was making is that everyone has a DIFFERENT idea of how this “new mixer” should look and how it should function - we all have different needs, which is of course stating the obvious.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Here's mine, as previously described and crudely drawn:Heigen5 wrote: ↑07 Oct 2018Yeah, indeed, we all have our own needs. But feel free to recommend your needs here as well, propably Props would put the most useful ones into it then. And like I said, I'm totally happy with the SSL, but would like a new one for a Rack this time.selig wrote: ↑07 Oct 2018
Of course, but the suggestions that ARE made by thousands are more likely to be implemented in my experience. I even agree with your suggestion, if it’s done the way that addresses my needs. And I also agree it should be done by the Props and not as an RE so it can be freely used in Combinators.
One of the points I was making is that everyone has a DIFFERENT idea of how this “new mixer” should look and how it should function - we all have different needs, which is of course stating the obvious.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
Take a look at the line mixer - it’s got basically the same text effect (that’s where I copy/pasted from). Did it that way so folks would be familiar with the basic color/text size etc. Look familiar?
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
Yours looks cleaner. But yeah, one way to get more space for the labels would use space vertically.selig wrote: ↑07 Oct 2018Take a look at the line mixer - it’s got basically the same text effect (that’s where I copy/pasted from). Did it that way so folks would be familiar with the basic color/text size etc. Look familiar?Heigen5 wrote:
This is pretty good, as long as the text on the labels would also stick out pleasantly i.e. would make it easy to recognise that what is what.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Edit: by the way, the text don't always need to follow the old "text on a tape" principle.
Last edited by Heigen5 on 07 Oct 2018, edited 1 time in total.
Not sure your point. Let’s talk features, not fine tuning the text placement, size, and color…kinda getting the cart before the horse!Heigen5 wrote:Yours looks cleaner. But yeah, one way to get more space for the labels would use space vertically.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests