Modernized Mixer Alternative

[Concep]

I know a lot of people love the SSL mixer, and I’m not putting it down. For me, the modules are too limiting, which leads me to avoid using this central feature. I just don’t see why they looked to the limited functionality of hardware units of the past as the guide to build a music creation software.
I would love for RS to add a modern option for the Mixer, maybe with the ability to swap between vintage (SSL) and modern for each section or channel.

Sections:
Inputs – This part is okay and very simple. Would make the signal chain routing part drag-able instead of clicking buttons

Dynamics/Compressor – A modern compressor with no auto make-up gain.
Input Gain, Threshhold, Output Gain, Attack, Release, Knee (dial). Make the attack and release have wide ranges from extremely fast to slow.
Dynamics/Gate – The gate is okay, but I have to admit that I don’t really know what RANGE does.

EQ – Love the pop up EQ, but the bands are way too limited. I always hit the E button because I want a steeper slope. Remove the artificial limitations of an SSL. Make the HP and LP filters have variable Slope or more than 1 slope like 12/24db. Don’t limit the EQ bands by frequency like they are now. Don’t limit the Q like they are now. Make this flagship EQ more flexible. Why make this modern visualizer and then limit things to the analogue SSL control scheme?

Inserts – I NEVER use this part of the mixer, so I have no opinions on how to make it better.

Send FX – Why oh why are there only 8 send FX channels??? Let us add another section of 8 if needed. Or figure out a better way to add more of them.

Fader – I actually like the faders. Would love to add longer fader option. Would also like the Spectrum EQ window link to be at the bottom, so I could access it from the fader section.

Bonus – Transients – basic Attack and Sustain controls and output gain dial to adjust volume.

PS – Please add Punch In/Out markers. Pretty please.

[diminished]

Most of your critique could be adressed with using an appropriate insert fx of your choice - the feature you never used. Just sayin'.

I agree on the limitation of having only 8 aux sends, though. More would be nice!

[Yonatan]

Yes to more sends. Stacking or folding tracks in mixer and sequencer should be top priority. EQs and compressors, many of us have a lot already, but I dont protest betterments in that field either.

[mcatalao]

Punch in out markers are not part of the mixer. But i really need them!

You only need more sends if you don't use them as sends, but for parallel processing. Maybe the mixer needs something like an Aux Sends (as in, sends return to master, aux sends return to aux channels). Anyway, the behaviour of aux sends can be obtained with groups of groups (so that you have post fader aux sends).

Anyway, imho you are adding a level of complexity that does not belong in the philosophy of reason's main mixer. Reason's main mixer has the "in your face" control ideal. Everything is available right in front of you, rather than for example a control of an eq in Cubase is not available directly and you have to open a new window. TBH, i think a great improvement could be to see a graphic representation of the compressor and the gate similar to the eq. A transparent visual representation of the behaviour of the compressor and gate at the side of the eq and that you could see what components you're changing.

[esefelipe]

I agree with the spirit of this request. I love the SSL (which doesn’t have any analog modeling, btw, just vintage-inspired workflow). But a more precise, surgical modern mode would be appreciated.

For now, as others mentioned, you can totally workaround this by inserting your own preferred compressor, EQ or channel strip plugin.

More than 8 sends is absolutely needed. I’m finishing up an album in Logic and I’m easily using more than 8 sends routing to aux effects. This is actually one of the “reasons” why I view Reason as an instrument rack for writing and creativity - most certainly not a modern production DAW by any standard.

Also, FYI - the RANGE of a Gate determines how many decibels to reduce the signal as the gate is activated. You can go all the way from effectively muting a signal (hard noise gate) to just shaving a few dB (downward expansion).

[Loque]

Inserts – I NEVER use this part of the mixer, so I have no opinions on how to make it better.

if you would use it, you would understand that everything you addressed can be done here.

Send FX – Why oh why are there only 8 send FX channels??? Let us add another section of 8 if needed. Or figure out a better way to add more of them.

Yea, a few more, or better: "Why the f*** do we need limitations?"

[selig]

Also, FYI - the RANGE of a Gate determines how many decibels to reduce the signal as the gate is activated. You can go all the way from effectively muting a signal (hard noise gate) to just shaving a few dB (downward expansion).

More importantly about Range - the bigger the range the longer it takes to open the gate (and the more likely the attack transient to be missed). So best practice is to use only the largest range needed to achieve the advantage of the gate. Meaning, not every application of a gate needs to TOTALLy remove the unwanted signal, and many times better transient response is a more desirable trade off to full removal of background noise (which can actually sound very unnatural in many cases).

As for all the suggestions, sends are the only suggestion that really can't be easily worked around. Having a simple EQ and dynamics (think Pultec and LA-2a) is VERY desirable for more than half of the channels you need to work with in many cases. And while I've never needed more sends than the Reason mixer provides (a "real" SSL doesn't even give you eight, fwiw), I totally relate to those who want more. Would be easy enough to add another 8 sends with an A/B button, and that would certainly cover most requests IMO.

[BradfordMoeller]

This! The idea of being able to go to preferences, or somewhere in the UI, and switch between main mixer "profiles" would be very desirable, visually inspiring, and fun. Maybe one model could even sport a form of a "analog saturation" wet/dry.

[jlgrimes]

To me a "modernized" mixer is just a normal DAW mixer that YOU configure how you want.

Reaper and Studio One have great mixers.

No built in EQ
No master compressor

It saves screen real estate as many tracks might not need EQ/Compression (or you might not want to use the stock effects)


Just a flexible send/bussing/routing system, with VCA groups, resizable, track templates etc.

[guitfnky]

Inserts – I NEVER use this part of the mixer, so I have no opinions on how to make it better.

if you would use it, you would understand that everything you addressed can be done here.

Send FX – Why oh why are there only 8 send FX channels??? Let us add another section of 8 if needed. Or figure out a better way to add more of them.

Yea, a few more, or better: "Why the f*** do we need limitations?"

what benefit does using the Insert section of the mixer provide that you don’t get by using the Rack?

I don’t think having more flexible mixer options is a strange ask. as others have pointed out, other DAWs already have better base mixer options. I think the best argument against it is just that it would take dev time away from more pressing needs, but I agree that if/when those more pressing items are addressed, the mixer will be overdue for a bit of an overhaul.

[Loque]

what benefit does using the Insert section of the mixer provide that you don’t get by using the Rack.?

That was not the question of the OP. Everything he asked can be done in the Insert FX and this is in the rack. It doesn't make a big difference if you use the Insert Mix Channel or the rack. The Mix Channel is like a Combinator, and this is the advantage of it.

[guitfnky]

what benefit does using the Insert section of the mixer provide that you don’t get by using the Rack.?

That was not the question of the OP. Everything he asked can be done in the Insert FX and this is in the rack. It doesn't make a big difference if you use the Insert Mix Channel or the rack. The Mix Channel is like a Combinator, and this is the advantage of it.

it *was* what the OP was talking about. they said they never used the insert section of the *mixer*. they didn’t say they don’t use inserts.

the advantage you’re talking about—that you can access a button and a knob from the device in the mixer—seems like an edge-case, at best. if you’re already reaching for the rack because you find the channel effects too limiting, what are the chances you’re going to bother working in the channel, which is going to limit (there’s that word again) the controls you can access? there’s a reason very few people use that feature—it’s not well-thought out.

[Loque]

they said they never used the insert section of the *mixer*. they didn’t say they don’t use inserts.

Whats the difference?

[diminished]

Rack inserts are always pre-channelstrip, which may or may not be desired. And the beauty of channel inserts is that you can put them in different positions of the signal flow with a single click, even mute them all at once (like in a combinator, but there's no need to set one up)

Edit: I'd soo love to see an auto-populate feature, and also channel presets you can configure yourself (including inserts) for different applicatons.

[marcuswitt]

...rack inserts are always pre-channelstrip, which may or may not be desired....

Is that so? I don't think that this correct because - if we are talking about the same thing - Rack inserts represent the inserts that you can see and route in the Mixer view. Refer the button "insert pre"). But maybe I misunderstood your point.

Well, additionally to the four existing insert rotary knobs and buttons, I'd like to see the Mixer Channel's Inserts being build and presented similar to how they are shown in other DAW's, namely as a 'stack' of slots... plus an Reason-ish extra feature: a tiny, downscaled image/icon that indicates, which Rack device has been put in the Channel's insert that openes in a kind of a temporary window once you double-click that device's image/icon. In my imagination that could be a nice workflow improvement.

[diminished]

...rack inserts are always pre-channelstrip, which may or may not be desired....

Is that so? I don't think that this correct because - if we are talking about the same thing - Rack inserts represent the inserts that you can see and route in the Mixer view. Refer the button "insert pre"). But maybe I misunderstood your point.

With "rack inserts" I meant daisy chaining devices in the rack before they go into the channel strip, which is what probably most people do when they "add fx" - sorry for being unclear. These are obviously pre-channel.
Of course dragging stuff into the mixer channel's insert fx position or using the mixer's "edit inserts" are two sides of the same coin.

Well, additionally to the four existing insert rotary knobs and buttons, I'd like to see the Mixer Channel's Inserts being build and presented similar to how they are shown in other DAW's, namely as a 'stack' of slots... plus an Reason-ish extra feature: a tiny, downscaled image/icon that indicates, which Rack device has been put in the Channel's insert that openes in a kind of a temporary window once you double-click that device's image/icon. In my imagination that could be a nice workflow improvement.

Yeah that would be great. At least some visual representation of what's in there. Because if they're not set up, those "insert combinator knobs" don't do anything nor do they reveal what's inserted.

[guitfnky]

they said they never used the insert section of the *mixer*. they didn’t say they don’t use inserts.

Whats the difference?

that's what I was asking you--your answer was that the mixer acts like a combi.