Main Mixer evolution

[antic604]

The Main Mixer is one of the things that makes Reason special, unique and fun to use

But - like some other things in Reason - it could use some polish

My top wishes would be:

• Ability to swap out the individual components to other variants, e.g. Neve- or API-styled ones
• Bring back the insert controls section, where we could freely map 4 knobs and 4 buttons existing on the channel's insert devices
• Mixer's GUI should follow the chosen colour theme
• For laptop peasants like me, Main Mixer panel should be available to split screen vertically without clunky workarounds, like this:
  
  

[xbitz]

Is there a tips and tricks topic for the mixer somewhere, with videos like this one?

[antic604]

Is there a tips and tricks topic for the mixer somewhere, with videos like this one?

This one isn't precisely about mixer, but revolves around mixer all the same:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... JNhp3tAtPZ

[jam-s]

Those are very good suggestions. It would be best to also post them to RS support so they actually might be looked at by RS.

[xbitz]

I would also add folder tracks that don't do anything with routing but would reduce the visual clutter ... like in Cubase

[xbitz]

By the way, from what I remember, the insert control was direct wiring, not CV, so I ask for it back in the form of an integrated CV8x4

[antic604]

I would also add folder tracks that don't do anything with routing but would reduce the visual clutter ... like in Cubase

I'd rather the busses to be collapsible (and pinned to the right / master).

Folder tracks is something that would be useful in Sequencer - 1) to mirror the busses, 2) to collect together all the individual tracks that in every other DAW "belong" to the main track: channel automation, inserts automation, player patterns, etc. They all get a separate track in Reason, often in a random place and dragging them around f**ks stuff up. It's disorienting and I can't see any benefits of it.

[Aosta]

I'd rather the busses to be collapsible (and pinned to the right / master).

I've been waiting for this since the SSL became a thing.

[xbitz]

I would also add folder tracks that don't do anything with routing but would reduce the visual clutter ... like in Cubase

I'd rather the busses to be collapsible (and pinned to the right / master).

Folder tracks is something that would be useful in Sequencer - 1) to mirror the busses, 2) to collect together all the individual tracks that in every other DAW "belong" to the main track: channel automation, inserts automation, player patterns, etc. They all get a separate track in Reason, often in a random place and dragging them around f**ks stuff up. It's disorienting and I can't see any benefits of it.

There is a "flame war" so a nice long thread about this on the Cubase forum, quite a few scenarios fall into the category where the two cannot be mixed
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/make-fol ... s/157925/1

[antic604]

I'd rather the busses to be collapsible (and pinned to the right / master).

Folder tracks is something that would be useful in Sequencer - 1) to mirror the busses, 2) to collect together all the individual tracks that in every other DAW "belong" to the main track: channel automation, inserts automation, player patterns, etc. They all get a separate track in Reason, often in a random place and dragging them around f**ks stuff up. It's disorienting and I can't see any benefits of it.

There is a "flame war" so a nice long thread about this on the Cubase forum, quite a few scenarios fall into the category where the two cannot be mixed
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/make-fol ... s/157925/1

Yeah, there's no perfect solution.

BTW, good to see you here

[crimsonwarlock]

I'd rather the busses to be collapsible (and pinned to the right / master).

If you deselect “Auto-group Devices and Tracks” under the options-menu, you can move your buses freely to where you want them

They won't get pinned to the master section (I actually hate that behavior in other DAWs), but you can at least have them grouped together.

[selig]

I'd rather the busses to be collapsible (and pinned to the right / master).

Folder tracks is something that would be useful in Sequencer - 1) to mirror the busses, 2) to collect together all the individual tracks that in every other DAW "belong" to the main track: channel automation, inserts automation, player patterns, etc. They all get a separate track in Reason, often in a random place and dragging them around f**ks stuff up. It's disorienting and I can't see any benefits of it.

There is a "flame war" so a nice long thread about this on the Cubase forum, quite a few scenarios fall into the category where the two cannot be mixed
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/make-fol ... s/157925/1

Thing is, Reason Studios never seems to take things to the logical conclusion. They tend to take things just far enough. It is for that reason I’ve always assumed we’d only get one of these features (or both “as one”).

My guess is the “Reason Way” for this would simply be groups = busses = show/hide = folders. Frankly I’d be TOTALLY happy if the ever did that, but this has been suggested for so many years I’m not sure it will ever happen on any level.

I would also be happy with a SPILL function (a term from live mixers, basically a visual “solo” for any group/tracks). Spill works such that all tracks at the top level are shown if you “spill” from the master channel, so only tracks feeding the master bus directly. If you make sub groups for everything in the mixer, hitting spill on the master shows all the group faders - super quick way to get the “big picture”. Reminds me of how the SSL had VCA Groups in the center, so you could have sub-masters for all major instrument groups for big/general moves (drums down, vocals up, etc).

As for the suggestion for alternate console “inserts”, that’s another thing I’ve been hoping for. LUNA is starting to go down that route, but only the API is available so far (Neve and SSL seem to be the next most suggested consoles).

[crimsonwarlock]

For me, the only things missing in the SSL-mixer are solo-in-front and VCA-channels. For both, I'm thinking about how I can solve this with available REs, but I'm not there yet.

My guess is the “Reason Way” for this would simply be groups = busses = show/hide = folders.

That would mean that routing is fixed inside the structure of the mixer. This is how it is in most DAWs and you need pre-fader sends for anything more complex, which becomes a mess pretty fast, and is anything but clear to look at. The cables-paradigm In Reason gives incredible flexibility in setting up complex routing scenarios, which would be cumbersome in the setup you are suggesting. The hardware-way of doing things in Reason means that sometimes you can't have the software-way, and I'm totally fine with that.

[selig]

For me, the only things missing in the SSL-mixer are solo-in-front and VCA-channels. For both, I'm thinking about how I can solve this with available REs, but I'm not there yet.

My guess is the “Reason Way” for this would simply be groups = busses = show/hide = folders.

That would mean that routing is fixed inside the structure of the mixer. This is how it is in most DAWs and you need pre-fader sends for anything more complex, which becomes a mess pretty fast, and is anything but clear to look at. The cables-paradigm In Reason gives incredible flexibility in setting up complex routing scenarios, which would be cumbersome in the setup you are suggesting. The hardware-way of doing things in Reason means that sometimes you can't have the software-way, and I'm totally fine with that.

This is how it is NOW, no? The suggestion I made did not change how audio routing is done on any level. It simply works the way you would work MOST of the time, which is with groups, audio, and show/hide set in one place instead of three. Right now all that a "Bus Group" affects is audio, which I wouldn't change. I would add the OPTION for all tracks in the bus to ALSO act as mixer and edit groups, and with the ability to optionally hide the channels feeding the bus.
To clarify:
BUS: all bus channels feed the group bus channel, as they do now
Option–Edit Group: all bus tracks in the sequencer are edited as one, such as drum tracks or multi-mic'ed guitar setups
Option–Mix Groups: all bus channels follow all changes on all controls (not just faders), more useful than I initially thought (now that I have this option in LUNA I use it frequently)
Option–Show/Hide: all bus channels and tracks can be hidden, or can be visually "soloed" in SPILL mode

Ideally you'd have separate versions of all of these features, but I don't typically see that level of sophistication in Reason so I'm suggesting a "Reason Way" of giving us the "80% feature" we're accustom to receiving.

[crimsonwarlock]

This is how it is NOW, no?

No, it's not. In Reason there is no specific location-relation between a bus or group (whatever you name it) and the mixer-channels feeding into it (same as with hardware). To have "groups = buses = show/hide = folders" (as you stated), the channels must be adjacent to the containing folder/bus/group (as they are in EVERY DAW that implements collapsible folders).

Option–Edit Group: all bus tracks in the sequencer are edited as one, such as drum tracks or multi-mic'ed guitar setups

This is another problem with the idea of folders in Reason: There are no "bus tracks" in the sequencer, unless you create a sequencer track for a mixer-channel for automation etc. You can have an arbitrary combination of tracks that are only in the sequencer but not on the mixer, and channels on the mixer that have no tracks in the sequencer. You can do things in Reason that are simple and efficient, yet in other DAWs require a mashup of mixer-channels, audio and MIDI-tracks. This is why e.g., Reaper has a track manager where you can hide unused sequencer tracks that are there because you need the mixer channels, and hide mixer-channels because they are there only because you need the sequencer track. Implementing folders in Reason would either take away a whole lot of flexibility that we currently have, or be crazy complex to implement (and probably to use as well).

It's bewildering to me that people think this stuff is easy to implement or even to architect.

[selig]

This is how it is NOW, no?

No, it's not. In Reason there is no specific location-relation between a bus or group (whatever you name it) and the mixer-channels feeding into it (same as with hardware). To have "groups = buses = show/hide = folders" (as you stated), the channels must be adjacent to the containing folder/bus/group (as they are in EVERY DAW that implements collapsible folders).

Option–Edit Group: all bus tracks in the sequencer are edited as one, such as drum tracks or multi-mic'ed guitar setups

This is another problem with the idea of folders in Reason: There are no "bus tracks" in the sequencer, unless you create a sequencer track for a mixer-channel for automation etc. You can have an arbitrary combination of tracks that are only in the sequencer but not on the mixer, and channels on the mixer that have no tracks in the sequencer. You can do things in Reason that are simple and efficient, yet in other DAWs require a mashup of mixer-channels, audio and MIDI-tracks. This is why e.g., Reaper has a track manager where you can hide unused sequencer tracks that are there because you need the mixer channels, and hide mixer-channels because they are there only because you need the sequencer track. Implementing folders in Reason would either take away a whole lot of flexibility that we currently have, or be crazy complex to implement (and probably to use as well).

It's bewildering to me that people think this stuff is easy to implement or even to architect.

Please don't be bewildered on my account - I'm happy to clarify what I mean, and I also thought I was extremely careful to avoid saying crap like "this stuff is easy to implement" on any level. In fact, I'm presenting the "keep it simple, stupid" approach, knowing Reason is not going to go the "full feature" route any time soon IMO, and knowing as a small developer myself I'd like to think I am well aware of what all is involved in a feature beyond just saying "make it so". But I digress…

Channels wouldn't have to be adjacent. Even now I could put all my bus channels in the right (or left) side of the mixer and things would still work as expected. Maybe it's because you're expecting it to work like "collapse", and I'm expecting it to work like "hide". In other DAWs you can hide a group or individual channels and they don't have to be physically related. To clarify, I don't want a "collapse" feature, I want "show/hide".

Allow me to present some examples in an effort to clarify my ideas.
Lets say you have 8 drum channels feeding a drum bus, coming from Retro Umph. In the mixer that's 9 channels, but in the sequencer there is one (a note track) since mixer Chanels are not 1:1 with sequencer tracks as is the case in some DAWs. So what would happen if you "hid" the group? The 8 drum channels would be hidden in the mixer (and rack) while the bus channel would remain. The bus channel is where the "show/hide" button is located, so it must stay in view in this case.
What would happen in the sequencer? Nothing, I would think, right? This is a simple example of "tracks that are only in the sequencer but not on the mixer, and channels on the mixer that have no tracks in the sequencer."
For audio tracks it's even simpler since there IS a 1:1 relationship with tracks and channels for audio.
Rack View would follow Mixer View easily enough since there is a 1:1 relationship between Mixer Channels and Rack Channels. Following the example, the 8 Mix Channels would be hidden but the Bus Channel and Retro Umpf device would stay in view.
We already have a way to collapse multiple note lanes and audio takes in the sequencer, so that is not needed.

No flexibility is removed, and there is one additional button on bus channels (as far as complexity goes), and that's it. This more simple approach avoids having separate mix/edit groups or the need for a separate window for showing/hiding individual tracks. Combine with a "show all hidden tracks and channels" command sillier to "ALL OFF" for mutes and solos and you're never more than one button away from finding anything that is currently hidden.
As a bonus, all grouped channels have the option of being included in Mix and Edit groups (a Pro Tools and LUNA term if it's not familiar to others).

Even at this basic level, the improvement to workflow on larger projects would be felt IMO. The "Show ALL" button is the quick way to "get out of jail" quickly when you're hearing stuff you can't see (or vice versa), as it is for the "All Off" for Mutes and Solos currently when under similar circumstances.
I'm sure it is entirely possible I've left out something super important that would cause this entire concept to fall apart, but that's part of why you share stuff with others - so they can tear it apart and reveal the flaws!

[crimsonwarlock]

I also thought I was extremely careful to avoid saying crap like "this stuff is easy to implement" on any level.

That was not specifically aimed at you, more generally at the many users here on the forum who tend to end any feature request with "I think it's easy..." or similar statements

We clearly have different views on the matter. My view is based on my experience with the mess that is "folders" in other DAWs. Especially as I have a control-surface in front of me with 24 + 1 motorized faders, and I've yet to see a DAW that keeps the control surface in sync with the folder-status on screen. Which basically means that any collapsing or hiding or whatever, is completely useless when you don't mouse around and use a control surface instead.

As for the large number of mixer-channels on screen, my projects have typically 100-150 mixer channels. Reason is in this case, again, superior to every other DAW regarding how easy it is to navigate such big projects, with all three of the panels sync their positions to each of the other panels. Reason has a vastly superior workflow in that regard.

[xbitz]

I would be open to a simple visual filtering(based on the selected tracks), independent of everything else. The appearance of the sequencer and the mixer could be synchronized. The project should be saved with it and switching should be enabled with shortcut keys for happiness.



It wouldn't help much with the original issue, however, perhaps fitting the related devices and their automation onto one screen could be managed (ala Bitiwg group selector dropdown), which wouldn't be a disadvantage.

[selig]

We clearly have different views on the matter. My view is based on my experience with the mess that is "folders" in other DAWs. Especially as I have a control-surface in front of me with 24 + 1 motorized faders, and I've yet to see a DAW that keeps the control surface in sync with the folder-status on screen. Which basically means that any collapsing or hiding or whatever, is completely useless when you don't mouse around and use a control surface instead.

As for the large number of mixer-channels on screen, my projects have typically 100-150 mixer channels. Reason is in this case, again, superior to every other DAW regarding how easy it is to navigate such big projects, with all three of the panels sync their positions to each of the other panels. Reason has a vastly superior workflow in that regard.

To be clear, I not asking for folders. I just want to hide some channels to focus on others like I can with other DAWs. To be fair, I've not used a DAW with folders, so I may hate them as much as you do!

I've never had issues with hidden tracks and 24 channel controllers (Pro Tools) which I used for years. Same with LUNA and my 8 faders.

Large track count sessions are worse in Reason than other DAWs I've used, which only include Pro Tools, Logic, and LUNA (besides Reason). I just happen to like working more in "outline" mode (for music AND for my technical writing gigs), where you can hide the details and focus on the big picture, or do a deep dive into any area.

"Panel Sync":
Not sure we're talking about the same thing, but I've wished for channel/track sync between Reason's three views since day one. Are we talking about different things?

[crimsonwarlock]

"Panel Sync":
Not sure we're talking about the same thing, but I've wished for channel/track sync between Reason's three views since day one. Are we talking about different things?

Running each panel (sequencer, mixer, rack) on a separate screen, hitting a track in the sequencer will bring the corresponding mixer channel and rack in focus on each screen. On the rack, hitting the sequencer button will do the same for the sequencer and the mixer. Only on the mixer you have to hit both the sequencer and the rack button to get them both in focus, but these buttons are there anyway.

Of course, most DAWs sync focus between the sequencer and mixer. I checked Reaper (as that is still installed here for legacy reasons), but I guess others do too. However, as no other DAW has anything like the rack, working your insert FX during mixing in those DAWs can't touch Reason's workflow. Having the SSL-mixer on a (large) dedicated screen is like having an actual mixing desk in my studio, especially with my control surface (which has a dedicated strip-mode btw). And with the racks moving into focus on their dedicated screen, it is the closest you can get to working with actual gear, as I can instantly edit ALL the insert FX that are on a channel. This is also the main reason why I try to work exclusively with Rack Extensions, as floating VST-windows break this workflow.

[selig]

"Panel Sync":
Not sure we're talking about the same thing, but I've wished for channel/track sync between Reason's three views since day one. Are we talking about different things?

Running each panel (sequencer, mixer, rack) on a separate screen, hitting a track in the sequencer will bring the corresponding mixer channel and rack in focus on each screen. On the rack, hitting the sequencer button will do the same for the sequencer and the mixer. Only on the mixer you have to hit both the sequencer and the rack button to get them both in focus, but these buttons are there anyway.

Of course, most DAWs sync focus between the sequencer and mixer. I checked Reaper (as that is still installed here for legacy reasons), but I guess others do too. However, as no other DAW has anything like the rack, working your insert FX during mixing in those DAWs can't touch Reason's workflow. Having the SSL-mixer on a (large) dedicated screen is like having an actual mixing desk in my studio, especially with my control surface (which has a dedicated strip-mode btw). And with the racks moving into focus on their dedicated screen, it is the closest you can get to working with actual gear, as I can instantly edit ALL the insert FX that are on a channel. This is also the main reason why I try to work exclusively with Rack Extensions, as floating VST-windows break this workflow.

yes, we were talking about different things and I totally get what you're talking about now.
Interestingly, that is similar to how I'm working in LUNA, using the RRP as my "inserts" for many things. I just can't get away from that free form approach, where you see multiple devices and the relationship between them all at once.
With LUNA it's the API console, with Reason it's the SSL (would love BOTH to have more options). But the more you can see at once, the better for me, so I totally get where you're coming from here!

[crimsonwarlock]

Interestingly, that is similar to how I'm working in LUNA, using the RRP as my "inserts" for many things. I just can't get away from that free form approach, where you see multiple devices and the relationship between them all at once.
With LUNA it's the API console, with Reason it's the SSL (would love BOTH to have more options). But the more you can see at once, the better for me, so I totally get where you're coming from here!

For what I've seen, LUNA is the only "other" DAW that comes close to this way of working. If I had to move to another DAW, the RRP would be the way to go for me as well. The only thing missing there is the possibility to wire things up across channels, which is also important to me. Oh, and the RRP should be resizable, at least in height

[soundmodel]

My top wishes would be:

• Ability to swap out the individual components to other variants, e.g. Neve- or API-styled ones

Dedicated plug-in vendors will do a better job at this, so just grab a bx_console or whatever console plug-in.

But what we would want is the ability to open a "channel VST" from the mixer:

viewtopic.php?t=7501533

Although it's not a big deal to begin to treat Combinators as channel strip containers.

[xbitz]

^^^ I would appreciate a Logic-style shortcut, for example, cmd-1,2 etc. to open/close(toggle the visibility) the first, second, etc., plugin connected in the currently selected mixer channel... just like

Show/hide Spectrum EQ Window [F2]