Mods, well lets just say most people come to expect more from you then what many of you have brought to this thread. The equivalent of pouring gas on a fire... because you can't just let a man express his dissatisfaction in a manner that clearly outlines his particulars even if it is a little emotional (RE: obviously because of said poster's passion for the software). Below is the first response to AttenuationHz from a mod in this thread. It is 100% guilty of being dismissive and attempting to minimize or trivialize solid feedback / examples. All you had to do was leave out the portion highlighted in bold underline, but instead you pissed in the "remote users'" cheerios (nevermind the rest of the unconstructive replies from others "attempting to be funny" at an inappropriate time). It's not any man's place to dictate what is or isn't a loss to another man's workflow, period:
Now, before everyone starts attacking my attempt at highlighting the absurdity of this entire thread just because I'm new around here, consider I'm trying to make an example of the very real fact that this pandemic has absolutely ruined people's ability to critically think and or communicate. People with relatively negative dispositions, but legitimate concerns can't express feedback without the pitchforks coming out, vice versa. I'm going back to being a lurker on this forum with this post. Having said that, can we attempt to get replies out of a defensive posture and into a more objective / suggestive reflection as it relates to how you approach another man's feedback? We all got enough toxicity to deal with in daily life given the socioeconomic climate we're living under without bringing the affects of that to this forum.QVprod wrote: ↑03 Sep 2021I think your solution would actually cause more confusion. 2 different combinator where 1 can be used in a mix channel and the other not is just complicated. One device is just a cleaner way to handle it. As far as combinators in the mix channels, you barely had control over much to begin with. Anything in depth had to be done from the rack anyway, so no real loss there aside from those who relied on remote mappings (which are said to be returning in some form with choice of parameters). You don’t have to search for the combinator in the rack, there’s a button in the mixer now that takes you directly there.AttenuationHz wrote: ↑03 Sep 2021What was the thought process to getting rid of the built in combinator in a mix channel? Was it lack of ability to place a combinator inside a mix channel to begin with. Was it that the built in combinator on a mix channel just wasn't used by the majority of users who happen to have analytics still turned on? Was it that if there was a combinator inside a mix channel then you don't really need to control anything from the mixer?
Whatever the issue there is a solution that has been overlooked here: the option for both features.
- You call the new combinator something different and keep the old one which can't be placed inside a mix channel and patches from the old can work with the new or not and just replace the combinator but keep the mix channels built in combi
- The new combinator can only control device inside it. The mix channel can control up to 8 parameters on the new combinator that is inside of it or the devices that are outside of the new combinator inside the mix channel.
Insert fx will still work outside of a mix channel you just won't be able to program them and in turn lose the control you have with them on the Mixer. You now have very little control on those inserts because of the removal of the controls on the mix channel and in turn from the Mixer. How bad is removing buttons and knobs you can program from the mix channel, extremely if it is an EQ band not available on the EQ channels on the mixer or some other utility insert to allow you to mix while at the Mixer you no longer have control and have to search for a combinator in the rack. Not only has the removal been a feature lost it is also a hindrance on workflow something that is in need of much attention - one step forward 2 steps back!
- You add a trimmed down version of the new combinator to the mix channel where the 4 buttons can switched out for 4 knobs individually (gaining features)
The decision to remove the built in combinator from mix channels really was a terrible one, why would you want to remove features that are used??
While yes, you could still use insert fx outside of the insert fx slot I’m not complaining about the tidiness of things be able to be in a designated collapsible spot. Without being able to place combis inside of each other I think changing the mix channel so that it’s no longer a combi was an ok compromise though the one thing I’d wish was possible is being able to save and load and fx chain that contains combinators. Otherwise most of the old functionality is still there and there’s far more flexibility.
If it can be perceived as overly emotional, or minimizing in it's effect, it's probably better to rephrase it if not leave it out. This constant exchange of blows is tiresome when there is actually some very good feedback being surfaced around this release. RS definitely stirred the pot with Reason 12 Lets spend more time supporting the different POV's being shared here even if they don't affect ourselves and less time effectively cannibalizing our own! Sound engineers, designers, etc. They are a special breed! Have a great week everyone.